Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
codenamecueball said:
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. And what has it got to do with the posting being commented on, that suggested that cyclists don't have to pay attention to a car that might be about to drive into the side of you?
BMWBen said:
[personal insults removed]
It's fairly safe to assume that cyclists don't go round deliberately riding into cars.
You've never heard of 'crash for cash'?It's fairly safe to assume that cyclists don't go round deliberately riding into cars.
Or in cyclists cases it's normally 'falling off for cash'. Remember that the OP said there were no marks on the car.
None of us were there so none of us know what happened in this case but in general terms as soon as there's an insurance claim I would think that most insurance companies would NOT think 'It's fairly safe to assume that cyclists don't go round deliberately riding into cars.'
I have to say that thinking a human being would CHOOSE to be hit by a car - even at low speed - is idiotic in the extreme.
I was hit by a car that was doing less than 10mph and it threw me, all 18 stone of me, into the air and I was hurt / bruised but luckily no bones broken.
I was called by the other vehicles nsurers in the next 24 hours who offered me money. I didn't need to go to court or claim as it covered me to sort out my bike.
If I had broken bones I would have claimed at some point, possibly a few months after.
I was hit by a car that was doing less than 10mph and it threw me, all 18 stone of me, into the air and I was hurt / bruised but luckily no bones broken.
I was called by the other vehicles nsurers in the next 24 hours who offered me money. I didn't need to go to court or claim as it covered me to sort out my bike.
If I had broken bones I would have claimed at some point, possibly a few months after.
aclivity said:
roadsmash said:
They weren’t hit by a car. They hit the car.
Did they choose to do that? Show me where it says the cyclist chose to do that? In the same way that the car driver probably didn’t drive in such a way to intentionally cause the cyclist to hit them.
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.
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.
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.
NGee is right, it's the simplest explanation. It may or may not be what actually happened but the only people that know for sure what DID happen (and that's debatable given the reliability of eyewitnesses, especially those actually involved in the incident) are OP's missus and the cyclist that hit the car.
End of. Anything else is complete assumption.
I read it in lots of ways, but based on my own cycling I would expect that they were doing 20mph or so, but the driver assumed they were doing walking pace - as is usual for drivers. As soon as they went past her window bars they obviously stopped (again, as drivers seem to expect). The driver was probably doing not much over 20mph anyway as she was slowing down to turn left. We don't have any proof that it was the 3rd cyclist who hit the car, either.
NewUsername said:
In summary
Stupid woman passes cyclists in a cycle lane, slows, then turns across the cycle lane causing an accident, all the cycle haters come up with fantastic explanations why it’s not the car driver’s responsibility.
Usual PH
In summaryStupid woman passes cyclists in a cycle lane, slows, then turns across the cycle lane causing an accident, all the cycle haters come up with fantastic explanations why it’s not the car driver’s responsibility.
Usual PH
Stupid poster comes up with fantastic explanations about an incident they know absolutely nothing about.
Usual PH
roadsmash said:
It was obviously tongue in cheek, don’t be so miserable you two. 
Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
How do cars manage to crash into stuff that millions of drivers have missed before them? Possibly because the driver was sOut of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
t, or distracted. Quite possibly this cyclist was st, or distracted - but, on the face of it, the OP's girlfriend's car was driven across a cycle path in a way which put somebody else at risk of injury (if she hadn't put the car there, the accident wouldn't have happened).Cyclist should have missed the car, but no car should ever crash into a wall either, and yet it still happens.
Please don't add to the hatred of cyclists which is putting vulnerable road users at risk.
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.
tigger1 said:
roadsmash said:
It was obviously tongue in cheek, don’t be so miserable you two.
Out of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
How do cars manage to crash into stuff that millions of drivers have missed before them? Possibly because the driver was sOut of interest gazza, how would you choose to answer the following questions?
I’m guessing you’re a regular cyclist, I only cycle occasionally so obviously unworthy of having an opinion. But still interested to hear your thoughts.
1. How were two of the three cyclists able to avoid the car?
2. Why has it taken so long for the cyclist to claim?
t, or distracted. Quite possibly this cyclist was st, or distracted - but, on the face of it, the OP's girlfriend's car was driven across a cycle path in a way which put somebody else at risk of injury (if she hadn't put the car there, the accident wouldn't have happened).Cyclist should have missed the car, but no car should ever crash into a wall either, and yet it still happens.
Please don't add to the hatred of cyclists which is putting vulnerable road users at risk.
This has not been my attention, I’m merely just trying to demonstrate another point of view.
NGee said:
NewUsername said:
In summary
Stupid woman passes cyclists in a cycle lane, slows, then turns across the cycle lane causing an accident, all the cycle haters come up with fantastic explanations why it’s not the car driver’s responsibility.
Usual PH
In summaryStupid woman passes cyclists in a cycle lane, slows, then turns across the cycle lane causing an accident, all the cycle haters come up with fantastic explanations why it’s not the car driver’s responsibility.
Usual PH
Stupid poster comes up with fantastic explanations about an incident they know absolutely nothing about.
Usual PH
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff