Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
NewUsername said:
Lol , it’s there in black and white From the OP pal, plus 9 pages of dross
The OP wasn't there either!Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Surely you know by now that there are always 4 sides to every story. In this case there's the car drivers version, the cyclists version, the truth and your version. Although as you weren't there I wouldn't put much credence on your version.
You are entitled to an opinion but don't make it sound like fact, and then insult anyone who disagrees with you.
roadsmash said:
Agreed, incredibly worrying to think that some cyclists actually think like that and sums this thread up.
Context. Other answers refer to cars swerving in and out of cycle lanes. It’s meant to be segregated and a safe space, should you reasonably expect to be looking out for cars crossing drop kerbs without looking? I find it more worrying that other road users think it’s fine to expect vulnerable road users to slow to avoid them, and that if someone got injured that the most likely explanation is they did it on purpose for compensation.
Interesting to know you occasionally cycle, I occasionally drive a car.
Edited by 1ians on Friday 10th July 18:49
1ians said:
Other answers refer to cars swerving in and out of cycle lanes. It’s meant to be segregated and a safe space, should you reasonably expect to be looking out for cars crossing drop kerbs without looking?
YESI agree that it should be a safe space however back in the real world, if you want to stay alive I'd suggest you expect all other road users to behave like morons. In most cases you won't be disappointed!!!
syl said:
Centurion07 said:
NGee said:
Drawweight said:
My take on the accident is if there were 3 cyclists given the width of the cycle lane they are either going to be in single file or 1:2 or 2:1 which means the cyclist/ s at the rear are going to be unsighted to an extent.
The OP’s gf turned across them unexpectedly and the leading bikes swerved round the car but the third one being nearer the kerb and unsighted did not get the chance and ran into the rear quarter of the car.
Is this not the simplest explanation?
It may not be what happened but it’s more likely than some crash for cash scenario.
NO! If a cyclist can't see a car in front of him he shouldn't be on a bike!The OP’s gf turned across them unexpectedly and the leading bikes swerved round the car but the third one being nearer the kerb and unsighted did not get the chance and ran into the rear quarter of the car.
Is this not the simplest explanation?
It may not be what happened but it’s more likely than some crash for cash scenario.
It must be interesting driving or cycling with you if you interpret your safe speed as including all sorts of imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of you and which if you hit you would clearly be the guilty party.
Foss62 said:
This is getting crazier...if something unexpected appears in front of you leaving you without enough room to stop, you will hit it.
It must be interesting driving or cycling with you if you interpret your safe speed as including all sorts of imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of you and which if you hit you would clearly be the guilty party.
It's called anticipation, you should try it. Whilst I accept that not every accident can be avoided, If a few more people thought about 'imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of them' then there would be far less accidents.It must be interesting driving or cycling with you if you interpret your safe speed as including all sorts of imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of you and which if you hit you would clearly be the guilty party.
In this case there was a dropped kerb, that's a pretty good clue that an 'imaginary object might theoretically appear in front of them'.
It shouldn't but it might!
NGee said:
Foss62 said:
This is getting crazier...if something unexpected appears in front of you leaving you without enough room to stop, you will hit it.
It must be interesting driving or cycling with you if you interpret your safe speed as including all sorts of imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of you and which if you hit you would clearly be the guilty party.
It's called anticipation, you should try it. Whilst I accept that not every accident can be avoided, If a few more people thought about 'imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of them' then there would be far less accidents.It must be interesting driving or cycling with you if you interpret your safe speed as including all sorts of imaginary objects that might theoretically appear in front of you and which if you hit you would clearly be the guilty party.
In this case there was a dropped kerb, that's a pretty good clue that an 'imaginary object might theoretically appear in front of them'.
It shouldn't but it might!
There always has to be some trade off between progress and safety and there is no indication in the case being discussed here to suggest that the cyclist(s) might have expected the driver to be either unsighted and/or about to turn left.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can view a collision that followed an overtake and then a left turn as anything other than the driver’s responsibility.
NGee said:
NewUsername said:
Lol , it’s there in black and white From the OP pal, plus 9 pages of dross
The OP wasn't there either!Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Surely you know by now that there are always 4 sides to every story. In this case there's the car drivers version, the cyclists version, the truth and your version. Although as you weren't there I wouldn't put much credence on your version.
You are entitled to an opinion but don't make it sound like fact, and then insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Foss62 said:
I have a reasonable understanding of anticipation, it’s got me through a fair number of ROSPA three yearly tests and the last road accident I had was in the last century. However that accident sort of makes my point - 15mph or so on a bike with a sight line of about half a mile and a previously stationary car pulled out of a side road leaving me about three feet (not) to stop in.
There always has to be some trade off between progress and safety and there is no indication in the case being discussed here to suggest that the cyclist(s) might have expected the driver to be either unsighted and/or about to turn left.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can view a collision that followed an overtake and then a left turn as anything other than the driver’s responsibility.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can apportion blame for an accident they didn't witness and have only a 2nd hand version of events from some one else who didn't witness the accident.There always has to be some trade off between progress and safety and there is no indication in the case being discussed here to suggest that the cyclist(s) might have expected the driver to be either unsighted and/or about to turn left.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can view a collision that followed an overtake and then a left turn as anything other than the driver’s responsibility.
NGee said:
Foss62 said:
I have a reasonable understanding of anticipation, it’s got me through a fair number of ROSPA three yearly tests and the last road accident I had was in the last century. However that accident sort of makes my point - 15mph or so on a bike with a sight line of about half a mile and a previously stationary car pulled out of a side road leaving me about three feet (not) to stop in.
There always has to be some trade off between progress and safety and there is no indication in the case being discussed here to suggest that the cyclist(s) might have expected the driver to be either unsighted and/or about to turn left.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can view a collision that followed an overtake and then a left turn as anything other than the driver’s responsibility.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can apportion blame for an accident they didn't witness and have only a 2nd hand version of events from some one else who didn't witness the accident.There always has to be some trade off between progress and safety and there is no indication in the case being discussed here to suggest that the cyclist(s) might have expected the driver to be either unsighted and/or about to turn left.
To me it’s amazing that anyone can view a collision that followed an overtake and then a left turn as anything other than the driver’s responsibility.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As someone who both cycles and drives to work and other locations, I do find the layout and road markings of cycle lanes supprisingly varied as well as often in favour of the car. IE often the cycle lane does have give way markings for minor side roads, which given the significanct minority of cars who swing into these with, however I can't think of a example of a dropped curb with an on payment cycle lane I do regularly. Usually in area with dropped curbs it's and in carriageway lane, where the lane continues and you just get a few breaks in the solid white line.Daniel
Foss62 said:
Fair comment, but your first post on this incident was to invent a fraudulent compensation storyline, for which there is even less anecdotal ‘evidence’
I did not invent a fraudulent compensation storyline. I just asked the previous poster, who said that cyclists didn't intentionally crash into cars, had they never heard of 'crash for cash'. I did not state that's what happened in this case because as you rightly say, there is no anecdotal 'evidence'.This has been my point all along - nobody actually knows what happened.
NGee said:
Foss62 said:
Fair comment, but your first post on this incident was to invent a fraudulent compensation storyline, for which there is even less anecdotal ‘evidence’
I did not invent a fraudulent compensation storyline. I just asked the previous poster, who said that cyclists didn't intentionally crash into cars, had they never heard of 'crash for cash'. I did not state that's what happened in this case because as you rightly say, there is no anecdotal 'evidence'.This has been my point all along - nobody actually knows what happened.
You did state in it (whilst acknowledging you may be incorrect) that in your opinion what happened "was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'".
Cat
Cat said:
Your first post makes no mention of crash for cash and you asked no questions in it.
You did state in it (whilst acknowledging you may be incorrect) that in your opinion what happened "was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'".
Cat
Correct. It was an opinion. The problem here is that a lot of posters (as on most threads) can't understand the difference between opinions and facts.You did state in it (whilst acknowledging you may be incorrect) that in your opinion what happened "was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'".
Cat
From an insurance background, almost any accident involving a pedestrian or a cyclist is the car drivers fault or there is enough contributory negligence for lawyers to get a settlement . £2000 for the cyclist means at least £ 3000 for the lawyers so its quite likely to have been ' have you had an accident . . .. ' 7 months is not unusual for a claim to be intimated
In 30 years we have had one case where the pedestrian was clearly very drunk and ran into the road ( on CCTV ) and one where a cyclist looking behind with friends veered across the road and hit our client head on.
In every other case insurers paid something
The OP s girlfriend should remind the insurers in writing of the correct time, date and place and leave them to it.
Ambulances are routinely dispatched to any accident with cyclist or pedestrian and to have the cyclist checked out at hospital is quite normal
Too many ambulance chasers and a legal system which makes it too easy to get some free money coupled with plenty of people with no scruples to make the most of an incident where really they were not injured. Settlements where injury has occurred are eye- wateringly expensive for insurers
In 30 years we have had one case where the pedestrian was clearly very drunk and ran into the road ( on CCTV ) and one where a cyclist looking behind with friends veered across the road and hit our client head on.
In every other case insurers paid something
The OP s girlfriend should remind the insurers in writing of the correct time, date and place and leave them to it.
Ambulances are routinely dispatched to any accident with cyclist or pedestrian and to have the cyclist checked out at hospital is quite normal
Too many ambulance chasers and a legal system which makes it too easy to get some free money coupled with plenty of people with no scruples to make the most of an incident where really they were not injured. Settlements where injury has occurred are eye- wateringly expensive for insurers
Any pics of the OPs missus yet?
Sounds to me of a case that can be distilled down to: she was ahead of some cyclists, she slowed and turned left across their intended path and the third cyclist in line was unable to avoid her in time.
7 months to make a claim is not too bad If the medical report confirms the cyclist sustained any injury then her insurers will be paying out a few grand. She hasn’t been charged with a motoring offence so she just needs to get on with life and let the insurer worry about it. Possibly consider recommend her joining IAM or try cycling?
Sounds to me of a case that can be distilled down to: she was ahead of some cyclists, she slowed and turned left across their intended path and the third cyclist in line was unable to avoid her in time.
7 months to make a claim is not too bad If the medical report confirms the cyclist sustained any injury then her insurers will be paying out a few grand. She hasn’t been charged with a motoring offence so she just needs to get on with life and let the insurer worry about it. Possibly consider recommend her joining IAM or try cycling?
NGee said:
Cat said:
Your first post makes no mention of crash for cash and you asked no questions in it.
You did state in it (whilst acknowledging you may be incorrect) that in your opinion what happened "was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'".
Cat
Correct. It was an opinion. The problem here is that a lot of posters (as on most threads) can't understand the difference between opinions and facts.You did state in it (whilst acknowledging you may be incorrect) that in your opinion what happened "was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'".
Cat
It could well have been a space alien death ray that caused it all, but for those of us in the real world who will assess what we have been told on the balance of probabilities
NewUsername said:
will assess what we have been told on the balance of probabilities
Because eyewitness stories recounted by a third party couldn't possibly be unreliable could they...? Not only an eyewitness but somebody that was actually involved in the incident.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff