I witnessed this accident from 30m away or so: big intersection, car is trying to turn right but there is no arrow so car is waiting for traffic in the other direction to go by and pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. Finally the coast seems clear and the car turns. At this point the pedestrian light is flashing and will turn red soon. Out of nowhere, this guy on his bike riding on the sidewalk appears, going as fast as I’ve ever seen someone go in a bike, in order to get across the intersection before the pedestrian light turns red. Both car and bike brake to slow down but can’t avoid contact. Everyone fortunately ends up being fine.
Who do you think would be most liable in that situation? I understand there’s a hierarchy on the streets of pedestrian >> bikes >> cars, but that bicycle was being totally reckless…
12 comments
Legally speaking? Probably 100% the car due to the aforementioned hierarchy.
Realistically speaking? The Cyclist was a dumb shit but it is what it is.
[deleted]
Providing witness testimony to the police for the accident could help the driver’s case. But if it’s only the words of the driver and cyclist, the driver is at fault.
If the light started flashing before the cyclist engaged, they are at fault (at least partially).
The flashing light is equivalent to a red light, you are not allowed to start crossing once it starts flashing, the flashing only lasts as long as it takes the average person to finish crossing if they had just engaged.
Because the pedestrian light was flashing, the cyclist was not supposed to enter the crosswalk. Should be 60-40, majority fault to the car.
This is treated the same as if the bicycle has ignored a stop sign or stop light. And yes, if a bicycle runs a stop sign and hits or is hit by a car, they STILL only get 40% of fault.
Edit: This is the insurance standard – it is possible for this to be adjusted in court (see discussion below)
A lot will depend on whether or not the crosswalk had this sign:
https://escape.poo.tokyo/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/160727_11.png
Having that sign means cyclists can use it too. The cyclist would be in the right to use it, and the car would be be in the wrong to hit them. You are supposed to confirm, as the driver, that the crosswalk is clear. Now, if there was no sign, it means the bicycle was not a pedestrian and is treated as a 2 wheeled vehicle, and that changes things a lot. The car will still be mostly at fault (based on the information provided), but the car will have less percentage of the 過失割合.
Forget most liable, the car is 100% liable because the bike was crossing on a flashing green, not a red. Hit a pedestrian or bike even if they cross on a red and the driver will still be responsible, just with much less negligence.
if you as a driver see the asshole cyclist coming at full speed, and you were turning slowly and safe as you should, so you were slow enough to break to a completely FULL STOP but the bike still hits you, being completely immovile; the car is still at fault?
isnt it like hitting a parked car?
First of all, bicycles are forbidden from using pedestrian crossings unless pushed.
Second, like it or not, car has less priority over a bicycle (even if it’s suicidal), and has to check for pedestrians before turning left or right.
So I’d say it’s something like 70/30. Not 100% on a car.
Irresponsible cyclists are the bane of my existence as a driver in Tokyo. Truly makes my blood boil.
Drivers are generally expected to anticipate hazardous situations and avoid accidents even if they have right of way. If the police determine that a driver had the ability to avoid an accident but didn’t take appropriate action to do so then that driver will be assigned at least partial responsibility regardless of the other circumstances.
The foreigner.