Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
roadsmash said:
What on Earth are you talking about? Read the thread dude.
Suggest you follow your own advice. Can’t figure out if you’re trolling or serious. The cyclist is on a segregated cycle lane, driver by her own admission sees the cyclist and still cuts across the junction expecting them to slow.
Cyclist hits the car and is taken to hospital by ambulance.
You’re then surprised that the cyclist may be injured and the OPs GF is more concerned about her insurance premium than someone’s wellbeing.
Brads67 said:
Driver turned left and cut across a bike lane knocking a cyclist off their bike. Simple
No blame laid at anyones door at the time but then cyclist makes claim for reasons unknown. Sounds fair to me.
Accept it and move on. Tell driver to pay more heed to cyclists in future.
Thank you.
Very simplistic, question for you then!No blame laid at anyones door at the time but then cyclist makes claim for reasons unknown. Sounds fair to me.
Accept it and move on. Tell driver to pay more heed to cyclists in future.
Thank you.
Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the OP’s partner has pulled into the drop kerb and due to some unforeseen obstruction has had to stop her car in a position that blocks the cycle path.
At what point/distance away does the cyclist have to be for a collision to become the cyclist’s fault?
If the driver pulls right in front of the cyclist then obviously I agree with you.
But what about if the cyclist is 10 metres away at the point of blocking the cycle lane? Maybe still a bit last minute perhaps from the driver I’d accept.
20 metres though?
Or 30 metres?
There’s a grey area here and all the keen cyclists contributing are adamant that the driver has pulled right in front of the cyclists leaving no room for avoiding action, despite the OP stating this was not the case.
1ians said:
roadsmash said:
What on Earth are you talking about? Read the thread dude.
Suggest you follow your own advice. Can’t figure out if you’re trolling or serious. The cyclist is on a segregated cycle lane, driver by her own admission sees the cyclist and still cuts across the junction expecting them to slow.
Cyclist hits the car and is taken to hospital by ambulance.
You’re then surprised that the cyclist may be injured and the OPs GF is more concerned about her insurance premium than someone’s wellbeing.
roadsmash said:
Very simplistic, question for you then!
Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the OP’s partner has pulled into the drop kerb and due to some unforeseen obstruction has had to stop her car in a position that blocks the cycle path.
At what point/distance away does the cyclist have to be for a collision to become the cyclist’s fault?
If the driver pulls right in front of the cyclist then obviously I agree with you.
But what about if the cyclist is 10 metres away at the point of blocking the cycle lane? Maybe still a bit last minute perhaps from the driver I’d accept.
20 metres though?
Or 30 metres?
There’s a grey area here and all the keen cyclists contributing are adamant that the driver has pulled right in front of the cyclists leaving no room for avoiding action, despite the OP stating this was not the case.
Yup all very good, 'cept she didn't so there is no grey area. She cut across a cyclist on a dedicated cycle lane.Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the OP’s partner has pulled into the drop kerb and due to some unforeseen obstruction has had to stop her car in a position that blocks the cycle path.
At what point/distance away does the cyclist have to be for a collision to become the cyclist’s fault?
If the driver pulls right in front of the cyclist then obviously I agree with you.
But what about if the cyclist is 10 metres away at the point of blocking the cycle lane? Maybe still a bit last minute perhaps from the driver I’d accept.
20 metres though?
Or 30 metres?
There’s a grey area here and all the keen cyclists contributing are adamant that the driver has pulled right in front of the cyclists leaving no room for avoiding action, despite the OP stating this was not the case.
She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
Brads67 said:
roadsmash said:
Very simplistic, question for you then!
Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the OP’s partner has pulled into the drop kerb and due to some unforeseen obstruction has had to stop her car in a position that blocks the cycle path.
At what point/distance away does the cyclist have to be for a collision to become the cyclist’s fault?
If the driver pulls right in front of the cyclist then obviously I agree with you.
But what about if the cyclist is 10 metres away at the point of blocking the cycle lane? Maybe still a bit last minute perhaps from the driver I’d accept.
20 metres though?
Or 30 metres?
There’s a grey area here and all the keen cyclists contributing are adamant that the driver has pulled right in front of the cyclists leaving no room for avoiding action, despite the OP stating this was not the case.
Yup all very good, 'cept she didn't so there is no grey area. She cut across a cyclist on a dedicated cycle lane.Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the OP’s partner has pulled into the drop kerb and due to some unforeseen obstruction has had to stop her car in a position that blocks the cycle path.
At what point/distance away does the cyclist have to be for a collision to become the cyclist’s fault?
If the driver pulls right in front of the cyclist then obviously I agree with you.
But what about if the cyclist is 10 metres away at the point of blocking the cycle lane? Maybe still a bit last minute perhaps from the driver I’d accept.
20 metres though?
Or 30 metres?
There’s a grey area here and all the keen cyclists contributing are adamant that the driver has pulled right in front of the cyclists leaving no room for avoiding action, despite the OP stating this was not the case.
She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
Brads67 said:
Yup all very good, 'cept she didn't so there is no grey area. She cut across a cyclist on a dedicated cycle lane.
She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
So you know exactly how far away the cyclist was from the car before she made the turn, how fast the cyclist was going, how slow the turn was, and that the cyclist was paying complete attention? You’re absolutely certain that there isn’t any possible avoiding actions for the cyclist?She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
You’re forgetting there were two other cyclists, one of which who was definitely in front of the one that hit the car, that didn’t hit the car.
roadsmash said:
So you know exactly how far away the cyclist was from the car before she made the turn, how fast the cyclist was going, how slow the turn was, and that the cyclist was paying complete attention? You’re absolutely certain that there isn’t any possible avoiding actions for the cyclist?
You’re forgetting there were two other cyclists, one of which who was definitely in front of the one that hit the car, that didn’t hit the car.
Ok. you tell me all those figures you are asking for , no ? is that because no one knows the answer to them ?You’re forgetting there were two other cyclists, one of which who was definitely in front of the one that hit the car, that didn’t hit the car.
You seriously don't get that some cyclists can't brake as fast as other cyclists ?
You're a bleating apologist for a bad driver. Simple.
Brads67 said:
roadsmash said:
So you know exactly how far away the cyclist was from the car before she made the turn, how fast the cyclist was going, how slow the turn was, and that the cyclist was paying complete attention? You’re absolutely certain that there isn’t any possible avoiding actions for the cyclist?
You’re forgetting there were two other cyclists, one of which who was definitely in front of the one that hit the car, that didn’t hit the car.
Ok. you tell me all those figures you are asking for , no ? is that because no one knows the answer to them ?You’re forgetting there were two other cyclists, one of which who was definitely in front of the one that hit the car, that didn’t hit the car.
You seriously don't get that some cyclists can't brake as fast as other cyclists ?
You're a bleating apologist for a bad driver. Simple.
I cycle occasionally by the way... so you can calm down.
I’m not an apologist, you should read some of my other posts on other threads! I’m happy to call anyone out for being a numpty. Regardless of if you are a cyclist or not.
In this case, I don’t think it’s clear cut to say the driver was being inconsiderate, that’s all.
7 months for a claim to come through for a simple incident, with all the wrong dates and times, smells, in my opinion.
Brads67 said:
Fair play I'll take it back, but this smacks of a boyfriend pissed off cause his girlfriend knocked a bike off and thought she had gotten off without an insurance claim, then being pissed when she didn't.
I can understand and appreciate that viewpoint. As I say, the 7 month gap and incorrect info just stinks of “compo time” to me.
I guess we’ll never know the exact details.
roadsmash said:
gazza285 said:
How does roadsmash get into the back seats of a car? Through the secondary side door? Too many handbrake turns? You might wear out the three quarters of the way along the side tyres...
You come across as very easily offended. It is a shame you can’t have a proper conversation about anything potentially negative about cyclists just because you are one.Try not to be so narrow minded.
I have not made any claim as to who is to blame for the incident, so far all I have done is point out the flaws and possible alternatives in the scenarios presented by people who were not there.
Brads67 said:
Ok. you tell me all those figures you are asking for , no ? is that because no one knows the answer to them ?
You seriously don't get that some cyclists can't brake as fast as other cyclists ?
You're a bleating apologist for a bad driver. Simple.
Yep, rim brakes vs discs... I upgraded the front brake of my townie bike over Summer, from cruddy rim brake to decent discs.You seriously don't get that some cyclists can't brake as fast as other cyclists ?
You're a bleating apologist for a bad driver. Simple.
In October, I had to slam on from 20 mph for a pedestrian who didn't look before crossing the road - had I not done the brake upgrade, I have no doubt that I'd either have hit them, or crashed trying to avoid them.
And I was riding centrally in my lane, giving me the maximum possible time to take evasive action!
Pegscratch said:
gazza285 said:
All this talk of how come only one cyclist hit the car, and yet the answer is there in the original post, the cyclist was closer to the pavement, and so didn't have the room to get round the car.
Or potentially chose not to/didn't realise - you can't automatically assume that moving wasn't an option.It's fairly safe to assume that cyclists don't go round deliberately riding into cars.
If your prejudices are so strong that they make you think ridiculous things like that, then you're in dire need of some self reflection and probably a break from internet forums.
1ians said:
What would a cyclist was riding along a segregated cycle path need to pay attention to?
What a f
king stupid question!Bearing in mind it'll usually be the cyclist that comes off worse, even when in the right, then I would suggest EVERYTHING!
Most cycle lanes (in this area) are nothing more than a strip of paint which stops and starts depending on the width of the road, road junctions, central bollards, pavements, lamp posts, etc, etc,
And this is before you 'pay attention' to all the parked cars, cars drifting in to cycle lane, cars turning out of or into side roads, cars turning out of or into driveways, pedestrians crossing road, pedestrians in cycle lane, other cyclists, etc, etc.
I would suggest that any cyclist not paying attention 100% of the time is asking for trouble, big time.
I would also suggest that any cyclist riding with the 'I'm in the right' attitude is also asking for trouble, big time.
It is my opinion that one, or both, of the above suggestions was responsible for the OPs GF incident. Although no one was there, so no one knows the actual facts.
But I'm still entitled to an opinion!!
roadsmash said:
Agreed, incredibly worrying to think that some cyclists actually think like that and sums this thread up.
there's what should happen and what does happen, but if someone drove into the side of you because you couldn't brake in time and your insurer said it was your fault i think, quite rightly, you'd be pissed off. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff