Discussion
Had an accident today that I could never have avoided.
Turning right through stopped traffic at a "keep clear" junction. As I went through a push bike came barreling up the cycle lane at 15Mph (His number) and hit the back wing of my car. He came off and over the boot.
Fortunatley he was not hurt, although I can feel a "I am dying and you are going to pay" claim coming on from him. And I gave him a lift to work.
The problem is that there was no way I could ever have seen him as the stopped traffic was vans and 4x4's at the time. What should I have done. Answers on a postcard !!
Turning right through stopped traffic at a "keep clear" junction. As I went through a push bike came barreling up the cycle lane at 15Mph (His number) and hit the back wing of my car. He came off and over the boot.
Fortunatley he was not hurt, although I can feel a "I am dying and you are going to pay" claim coming on from him. And I gave him a lift to work.
The problem is that there was no way I could ever have seen him as the stopped traffic was vans and 4x4's at the time. What should I have done. Answers on a postcard !!
It was the Merc thankfully. The TVR was resprayed last week !!.
Lots of deep scratches. Probably a few hundred quid. His front forks and wheel were totalled. I am assuming for the moment I will have to pay, therefore noting his wheel and forks were made from Carbon Fiber is a bit of a worry!
Lots of deep scratches. Probably a few hundred quid. His front forks and wheel were totalled. I am assuming for the moment I will have to pay, therefore noting his wheel and forks were made from Carbon Fiber is a bit of a worry!
simpo one said:
Anyone who cycles into the back of car isn't looking where they're going. Some cyclists think they are not required to be responsible - that's only for motorists and any accident is of course the motorist's fault. If he tries anything claim- or legal-wise, fight it all the way.
A bit harsh? By the sounds of it, the cyclist hit the rear quarter as the car was turning in. Seems a v. unfortunate situation but I don't think it's fair to blame the cyclist (and his brakes are acting on two weedy little tyres). It would be called a racing incident in another game...
Yes he was wearing a helmet.
I guess the problem I have is not so much who is to blame, but why we have a situation where an accident is unavoidable by the car driver.
I personally think he should have slowed down when aproaching a junction, however, from what I can gather, there is no mandatory requirement for him to do so.
In pure blame terms, I suppose he failed to take care to safeguard himself by travelling at a speed which means he could not take action himself. I would guess that this can't be proven. If I turned right in front of a car it would be my fault, I presume, legally, this would still be the case.
If he had been travelling slower, the accident would have been avoided, that is certain. His comment was that the road was very slippy and his racing wheels and tyres would not provide much stopping power in that situation.
My personal view is that give way type signs at each junction for the cycle lane would at least mean that each party can see each other. As a non-cyclist, I dont see things from their angle.
I guess the problem I have is not so much who is to blame, but why we have a situation where an accident is unavoidable by the car driver.
I personally think he should have slowed down when aproaching a junction, however, from what I can gather, there is no mandatory requirement for him to do so.
In pure blame terms, I suppose he failed to take care to safeguard himself by travelling at a speed which means he could not take action himself. I would guess that this can't be proven. If I turned right in front of a car it would be my fault, I presume, legally, this would still be the case.
If he had been travelling slower, the accident would have been avoided, that is certain. His comment was that the road was very slippy and his racing wheels and tyres would not provide much stopping power in that situation.
My personal view is that give way type signs at each junction for the cycle lane would at least mean that each party can see each other. As a non-cyclist, I dont see things from their angle.
b11ocx said:
Yes he was wearing a helmet.
I guess the problem I have is not so much who is to blame, but why we have a situation where an accident is unavoidable by the car driver.
I personally think he should have slowed down when aproaching a junction, however, from what I can gather, there is no mandatory requirement for him to do so.
In pure blame terms, I suppose he failed to take care to safeguard himself by travelling at a speed which means he could not take action himself. I would guess that this can't be proven. If I turned right in front of a car it would be my fault, I presume, legally, this would still be the case.
If he had been travelling slower, the accident would have been avoided, that is certain. His comment was that the road was very slippy and his racing wheels and tyres would not provide much stopping power in that situation.
My personal view is that give way type signs at each junction for the cycle lane would at least mean that each party can see each other. As a non-cyclist, I dont see things from their angle.
I agree that if you have pulled across him, you are probably, technically, to blame. However, as an IAM member, I am aware that I should always be able to stop in the distance I can see to be clear. In this way I can often avoid accidents regardless of whether I would have been at fault or not. As a cyclist, I would have though that self preservation would instill a similar thought process. I certainly am very careful of cars when cycling, (not very often these days, as given away by the evidence that the beer is winning over the exercise), not because I would necessarily be in the wrong, simply that *I don't want to die*.
you say it was stopped traffic, it wasn't a filter light and the cyclist went through a red, was it? if not, then he has the right of way as he is cycling on the road, just like a pedestrian crossing road has right of way. you were crossing his right of way so i guess if it went to court you are up the creek without a paddle.
i was parked once and my passenger opened the door to get out and a cyclist went bang right into it. i had my indicators on and everything but found out i am responsible for it. luckily cyclist was fine.
i also cycle into work and always slow down at junctions, because i know most motorist really dont see cyclists.
good luck
jody
i was parked once and my passenger opened the door to get out and a cyclist went bang right into it. i had my indicators on and everything but found out i am responsible for it. luckily cyclist was fine.
i also cycle into work and always slow down at junctions, because i know most motorist really dont see cyclists.
good luck
jody
No it wasnt a filter. It was about 30 yards after some lights which were causing (and always do) a tailback on his side of the road. I had simply stopped in the middle of the road as someone had stopped in the "keep clear" box. When he moved forward, I then crossed the road.
The next thing I saw was a bike out of the corner of my eye once I was almost over and he flew over the boot of the car.
Interestingly, this guy cycles 9 miles to work each day in 30 mins !!!
After surfing the net, it would seem he has right of way (Although I firmly believe that this is the cause. i.e no requirement to slow down to pass a junction when he has no room or the equipment to take any kind of avoiding action, even when unsighted)
It would however seem that he has a common sense responsibility for his own personal safety and any claim would, possibly, have an element of blame assigned to him, thereby reducing the money recieved. The 50:50 rule seems to apply alot.
My personal view is that we take responsibility for our own damage and leave it at that. I suspect that this will end up being a personal injury claim, with my no-claims going out of the window. I hope I am wrong.
The next thing I saw was a bike out of the corner of my eye once I was almost over and he flew over the boot of the car.
Interestingly, this guy cycles 9 miles to work each day in 30 mins !!!
After surfing the net, it would seem he has right of way (Although I firmly believe that this is the cause. i.e no requirement to slow down to pass a junction when he has no room or the equipment to take any kind of avoiding action, even when unsighted)
It would however seem that he has a common sense responsibility for his own personal safety and any claim would, possibly, have an element of blame assigned to him, thereby reducing the money recieved. The 50:50 rule seems to apply alot.
My personal view is that we take responsibility for our own damage and leave it at that. I suspect that this will end up being a personal injury claim, with my no-claims going out of the window. I hope I am wrong.
I don't mean to p155 you off but you crossed the cyclist's path in a manner which made it impossible for him to avoid you. I can't believe any court would consider it to be his fault. The reason was down to a queue of traffic but that was not his fault (or yours). Perhaps offering to help pay for his bike will help to generate a bit of goodwill and avoid a personal injury claim (wishful thinking maybe - but this happened to my business partner recently and it avoided any insurance claims).
Would it have been possible to edge past the queue to see the cyclist before crossing or would he then have gone over your bonnet?
Would it have been possible to edge past the queue to see the cyclist before crossing or would he then have gone over your bonnet?
Not pi55ing me off at all.
If I had edged out, I suspect that it could have been even worse as then he could have hit the middle section of the car and been catapulted into the window etc. I certainly am not saying it was his fault, although I personally would have slowed down as both he and I know that that area is going to be a blind area. There is no physical way I would have been able to see without blocking the cycle lane.
I would prefer to pay than lose my no claims, although I suspect this will be down to him not me. (Saying that he did tell me the wheels are £500 each and I assume Carbon forks are not cheap !)
I am just stating that blaming a car driver for an accident he could never have avoided is wrong. Equally blaming the bike rider for follwing the rules of the road (However silly) is wrong. If I was on a two lane road undertaking a line of traffic coming up to a junction, I would have no requirement to slow down either.
If I had edged out, I suspect that it could have been even worse as then he could have hit the middle section of the car and been catapulted into the window etc. I certainly am not saying it was his fault, although I personally would have slowed down as both he and I know that that area is going to be a blind area. There is no physical way I would have been able to see without blocking the cycle lane.
I would prefer to pay than lose my no claims, although I suspect this will be down to him not me. (Saying that he did tell me the wheels are £500 each and I assume Carbon forks are not cheap !)
I am just stating that blaming a car driver for an accident he could never have avoided is wrong. Equally blaming the bike rider for follwing the rules of the road (However silly) is wrong. If I was on a two lane road undertaking a line of traffic coming up to a junction, I would have no requirement to slow down either.
'Anyone who cycles into the back of car isn't looking where they're going.'
I stand by that - the only exception being if the car did an emergency stop. I believe - but stand to be corrected - that only police drivers are deemed responsible for tail-end shunts. In other situations blame falls naturally on the person who did the colliding.
Regarding the bikes brakes acting on 'two weedy little tyres', the cyclist is supposed to be aware of that and cycle accordingly - just as motorists are supposed to observe their stopping distances too.
It might be called a racing incident in another game, but this is not a race. The only race here is the human race.
In summary, probably best to pay for one's own damage and walk away. But don't roll over and die if asked to.
I stand by that - the only exception being if the car did an emergency stop. I believe - but stand to be corrected - that only police drivers are deemed responsible for tail-end shunts. In other situations blame falls naturally on the person who did the colliding.
Regarding the bikes brakes acting on 'two weedy little tyres', the cyclist is supposed to be aware of that and cycle accordingly - just as motorists are supposed to observe their stopping distances too.
It might be called a racing incident in another game, but this is not a race. The only race here is the human race.
In summary, probably best to pay for one's own damage and walk away. But don't roll over and die if asked to.
Just seen this thread and would like to comment.
If he hit your rear wing I would say he should have had plenty of time to stop from when he first saw your car. He should have seen your car as the front came about 3/4 of the way across the stationary traffic. If he was only travelling at 15 mph (his figure) this equates to 6.67 metres per second. If you were travelling at around 5 mph it would take you about 4 secs to cross that lane and be clear of the cycle lane therefore he should have seen you with 26.67 metres to stop in. More than ample even with skinny tyres on a damp road. Even if you were travelling at 10 mph he would have had nearly 14 metres to stop in. From the damage described he made no effort to stop at all.
I suggest to you that either he was not looking where he was going at all, or he intentionally hit you because he wants a new bike or something similar.
If he hit your rear wing I would say he should have had plenty of time to stop from when he first saw your car. He should have seen your car as the front came about 3/4 of the way across the stationary traffic. If he was only travelling at 15 mph (his figure) this equates to 6.67 metres per second. If you were travelling at around 5 mph it would take you about 4 secs to cross that lane and be clear of the cycle lane therefore he should have seen you with 26.67 metres to stop in. More than ample even with skinny tyres on a damp road. Even if you were travelling at 10 mph he would have had nearly 14 metres to stop in. From the damage described he made no effort to stop at all.
I suggest to you that either he was not looking where he was going at all, or he intentionally hit you because he wants a new bike or something similar.
b11ocx said:
For all you rich lawyers out there...
Is there such a thing as a personal injury waiver.
What I want is something that protects me if I agree to pay to fix the bike that means I will not be able to be screwed 2 years down the line.
IMHO (I am not a personal injury lawyer) if you write a letter stating that the sum you pay is in complete and final payment for any personal damage or injury caused by the accident and he agrees to sign it, preferably with a witness you should be OK. Did he go to the doctor (within about 24 hours)? If not he would have a hard time proving personal injury.
Just a thought, don't wish to stir things up: the horn is intended for alerting other road users in circumsatnces such as when sight lines are obscured. Might have been an idea to sound your horn before manouvering. However, from your descrption, am not sure even that would have avoided the accident but perhaps it may have allowed the cyclist to start breaking earlier. Just a thought.
Sorry to hear of your accident. Best of luck in resolving it.
Sorry to hear of your accident. Best of luck in resolving it.
kevinday said:
If he hit your rear wing I would say he should have had plenty of time to stop from when he first saw your car.... etc
I'd agree with Kev on this one, but I reckon that if he made a fuss about it & you don't have any witnesses as to your relative speeds, it could be tricky to get away with it, as technically it was his right of way...
As an aside, most bikers are taller than a queue of traffic (vans, busses & mum's on the school run excepted), so would it not have been possible for you to see his head approaching as you were waiting to turn?
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff