We are faced with a ruling handed down by the Provincial Court of Barcelona that partially upholds the appeal filed against the ruling of the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Barcelona, ​​appeal number 140/2021.

The litigation began as a result of an accident; the vehicle involved was stopped waiting for a pedestrian to cross the corresponding crossing, when the vehicle initially collided with a bicycle that was crossing the crossing.

In this case, the driver of the bicycle was riding it when crossing the pedestrian crossing, so he did not have priority over the car, since cyclists are prohibited from traveling through pedestrian crossings while riding the bicycle. Yes, I would have had it if I were pushing the bicycle without being mounted.

The vehicle was stopped in the pedestrian crossing, giving way to a pedestrian who was crossing. Once the pedestrian crosses, the driver of the vehicle begins the journey, ensuring that the driver looked both ways before starting the journey to ensure that no more pedestrians crossed.

The cyclist sued the vehicle driver's insurance company, resulting in the judge acquitting the defendant in the first instance and ordering the plaintiff to pay costs.

The problem arises when the cyclist allegedly crosses the crossing, and this is what the sentence understands since it cannot be proven and is taken into account only in the testimony of the driver of the vehicle, who is not an impartial witness, at high speed, so the driver of the vehicle, having already started moving, collides with the bicycle. The ruling states that when riding a bicycle, the driver's chances of reaction are less, since a pedestrian moves at a lower speed than a bicycle.

The General Traffic Regulations in article 64 indicate that bicycle drivers have priority of passage over motor vehicles when:

a) When traveling on a duly marked bike lane, cyclist crossing or shoulder.

b) When the motor vehicle turns right or left to enter another road, in permitted cases, and there is a cyclist nearby.

c) When traveling in a group, the first one has already started the crossing or has entered a roundabout.

However, the ruling states that to appreciate the exclusive fault of the victim, as a cause for exoneration from liability, it must be done in a restrictive manner and the following requirements must be met:

a) That the only guilty conduct is that of the victim;

 b) Exclusive and exclusive of it, without the slightest guilt on the part of the agent involved, acting as a passive element of the causal relationship (he did not intervene, with his conduct, in any way in the event).

c) That an evasion or fortune maneuver had been carried out to avoid or reduce the damage, or that this had been omitted because it was impossible.

Failed: For these reasons, the sentence rules that the requirements are not met to appreciate the exclusive fault of the cyclist, however, by virtue of what was stated in the previous paragraph, it is possible to consider a concurrence of faults, with 70% to be attributed to the bicycle and 30% to the tourism. Since the tourism violated article 3 of the General Traffic Regulations, section 1 of which states that "You must drive with the necessary diligence and caution to avoid any damage, to your own or to others, taking care not to endanger both the driver himself and the other occupants of the vehicle and the rest of the road users."