Car accident with a cyclist

[mrkhan89]

Hi guys,

I just need some advice. A cyclist went straight into the front of my car when I was turning into a side road from still. I pretty sure it was my fault. I waited for the two cars to pass then I slowly began to turn in, next thing I know, there is a cyclist on my bonnet! I offered to buy him a new wheel which had been damaged.

However he did not have a hi-vis on and it was pretty dark (sundown is around 6pm and the accident occurred at 8pm). So does that mean that it was his fault. I mean I was not driving fast. I was still prior to turning into the side road, I was slow turning. I can't think of anything I did wrong expect see the cyclist. I can only imagine that because he did not have a hi-viz on, I did not see him.

Thanks guys. I am still going to buy him a new wheel, doesn't matter if it my fault or his fault for not wearing a hi viz.

[annsxman]

Did you indicate to turn left into the side road?

[mike9009]

Unlucky, but I think you are at fault. I am not sure where in law it says that cyclists must wear Hi Viz jackets?

Did he have lights on the bike? Did he have valid tax disc displayed?

[mrkhan89]

annsxman said:

Did you indicate to turn left into the side road?

Yes. I was actually turning right into the side road from the main. So the vehicles are coming towards me.
Also I never turn without indicating or without double checking if the coast if clear (debatable...).

mike9009 said:

Unlucky, but I think you are at fault. I am not sure where in law it says that cyclists must wear Hi Viz jackets?

Did he have lights on the bike? Did he have valid tax disc displayed?

You're right. It is just advised to wear high visibility clothing to avoid accidents...
Ah well. I'm just glad the cyclist isn't injured in any way.


He had a light on the front but when I said " I don't think your light was on" he immediately said yes it was definitely on and then clicked the light on to show me ( surely if it was on, it would still be on!?)

Edited by mrkhan89 on Tuesday 21st October 23:19

[Ian Geary]

No law to wear hi-vis, but a front reflector * is required, and lights are a legal requirement at night.

• OK, the reflector would be of little use if not lit by your headlights.

If no-one was hurt I doubt the police would be interested.

If the cyclist takes up damage / personal injury claim against your insurance then lack of legal lighting could be a factor to consider, but by this stage I hope you'd have got hold of someone proper legal advice.


hth

Ian

[mike9009]

Ian Geary said:

No law to wear hi-vis, but a front reflector * is required, and lights are a legal requirement at night.

• OK, the reflector would be of little use if not lit by your headlights.

If no-one was hurt I doubt the police would be interested.

If the cyclist takes up damage / personal injury claim against your insurance then lack of legal lighting could be a factor to consider, but by this stage I hope you'd have got hold of someone proper legal advice.


hth

Ian

I do not think a reflector is a legal requirement to have attached to a bike. However if selling a new bike it must have a reflector attached. Pretty daft removing reflectors if you intend to use the bike at night or dusk as quite often they are more effective than lights.

Mike

[numtumfutunch]

DFTT

[TheAngryDog]

numtumfutunch said:

DFTT

????

Op, just want to get this right.

You were turning right into a side street, so the bike hit you on the passenger side of your car as you turned across them?

[mrkhan89]

TheAngryDog said:

????

Op, just want to get this right.

You were turning right into a side street, so the bike hit you on the passenger side of your car as you turned across them?

Almost right. The bike hit me on front. I was turning but I was barely into the maneuver and he hit me. So you could say it was head on even though I was turning.

[ecsrobin]

mike9009 said:

I do not think a reflector is a legal requirement to have attached to a bike. However if selling a new bike it must have a reflector attached. Pretty daft removing reflectors if you intend to use the bike at night or dusk as quite often they are more effective than lights.

Mike

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

[yellowjack]

Ian Geary said:

No law to wear hi-vis, but a front reflector * is required, and lights are a legal requirement at night.

• OK, the reflector would be of little use if not lit by your headlights.

If no-one was hurt I doubt the police would be interested.

If the cyclist takes up damage / personal injury claim against your insurance then lack of legal lighting could be a factor to consider, but by this stage I hope you'd have got hold of someone proper legal advice.


hth

Ian

Wrong, I'm afraid. Check RVLRs if you like, although these chaps have extracted the detail to save you the bother of reading the full legal document...

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/08/bike-lights-and...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations...

A pedal cycle, according to EU law, must be supplied with a white front reflector, a rear red reflector, amber pedal reflectors visible from both front and rear, and a white or amber reflector attached to each wheel, visible from the side.

As soon as the cycle has been 'supplied' to the customer, it is perfectly legal for the owner to at once remove the wheel reflectors and the front reflector. The rear and pedal reflectors must remain on the bike (if it is intended to use it at night).

Bear in mind, though, that the regulations, as they are currently phrased, only apply to pedal cycles being ridden between sunset and sunrise. Ridden in daylight hours, a cycle requires none of these lights/reflectors, and similarly it does not require them if it is stationary, or being pushed by a pedestrian after dark.

[mrkhan89]

Ian Geary said:

No law to wear hi-vis, but a front reflector * is required, and lights are a legal requirement at night.

• OK, the reflector would be of little use if not lit by your headlights.

If no-one was hurt I doubt the police would be interested.

If the cyclist takes up damage / personal injury claim against your insurance then lack of legal lighting could be a factor to consider, but by this stage I hope you'd have got hold of someone proper legal advice.


hth

Ian

Well he asked if I could buy him a new wheel a I was quite happy to. Surely he can't then try and claim against my insurance? Yes you're right, I should get some legal advice before I get a letter through the post eek! Thanks

[mrkhan89]

The cyclist did not have a reflector at the front of his bike. I made sure to check and I also asked him. He replied by saying that he had a light at the front, which, as I mentioned before, was not on. Only at my query did he deny it was off and went ahead and switched it on as to show me it was working...

[accident]

you must be taking the piss.
you come on a forum and say you drove into a cyclist and you want to blame him/her
do you blame parked cars for being in your way when you hit them?

[can't remember]

Finish the job next time.;)

[TheAngryDog]

mrkhan89 said:

Almost right. The bike hit me on front. I was turning but I was barely into the maneuver and he hit me. So you could say it was head on even though I was turning.

Ok, so how did he hit you? Was he in the middle of the road? Did you come together on your side or his side of the road?

[mrkhan89]

accident said:

you must be taking the piss.
you come on a forum and say you drove into a cyclist and you want to blame him/her
do you blame parked cars for being in your way when you hit them?

Yes I 'come on a forum', as most of us (I am pretty sure you too) do before we begin posing our questions/discussions etc.

My question was about a car accident. Last I checked this was a motoring forum?

Please quote and reply when and where I said that I want to blame him. I am not looking for a resolve here, just a personal resolve, for my conscience. I said in my initial post that I believe it was my fault. Where in this thread do you see me pointing the finger. My only issue towards the cyclist was that he did not have a Hi-Viz.

This is the first time(hopefully last) I have hit anything/anyone so I am unable to answer your final question about hitting parked cars. However you must have habitual experience of doing that seeing as you assumed it is something one does by saying "when you hit them".

With all do respect, bugger off.

[yellowjack]

mrkhan89 said:

The cyclist did not have a reflector at the front of his bike. I made sure to check and I also asked him. He replied by saying that he had a light at the front, which, as I mentioned before, was not on. Only at my query did he deny it was off and went ahead and switched it on as to show me it was working...

Dependent on the type of lamp, and the type of switch, it is entirely possible for a battery operated lamp to shut off in the event of a collision. It happened to me when I was hit by a van which entered a roundabout I was already on. It's due to the impact jolting the batteries and interrupting the power to the LED/PCB. It happens a lot off road as well, if you come off, or even if you hit an obstacle or a drop really hard. Finding a switched off lamp in the woods in the dark is a bh, too, when it has parted company with the handlebar mount.

Mostly, IMHO, for "didn't see him" you can more accurately substitute "didn't really look that hard".

[Beer Man]

Still don't see where you get this thing that the cyclist NEEDS to wear a hi-viz?????

With the amount of people wearing hi-viz thesedays they're kind of coming defunct.

[mrkhan89]

TheAngryDog said:

Ok, so how did he hit you? Was he in the middle of the road? Did you come together on your side or his side of the road?

He was sort of in the middle as there was no car behind him and it was a pretty clear space in front of him ( expect for me waiting to turn right)


Here is a visualisation I quickly did of the incident.

|http://thumbsnap.com/iDd3oOAB[/url]

Edited by mrkhan89 on Wednesday 22 October 00:17