Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
Foss62 said:
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.
They shouldn’t be. There should be plenty of room behind the cyclist at the rear and the one in front of them. If you’re driving down a road and a tree falls into the carriageway, the two cars in front of you manage to avoid it but you crash into it, I think you’re going to have to shoulder the blame for hitting it.
Edited by syl on Saturday 11th July 16:20
syl said:
I’m responding to “ the cyclist/ s at the rear are going to be unsighted to an extent.”
They shouldn’t be. There should be plenty of room behind the cyclist at the rear and the one in front of them. If you’re driving down a road and a tree falls into the carriageway, the two cars in front of you manage to avoid it but you crash into it, I think you’re going to have to shoulder the blame for hitting it.
Those responsible for maintaining the tree would be held to blame.They shouldn’t be. There should be plenty of room behind the cyclist at the rear and the one in front of them. If you’re driving down a road and a tree falls into the carriageway, the two cars in front of you manage to avoid it but you crash into it, I think you’re going to have to shoulder the blame for hitting it.
Edited by syl on Saturday 11th July 16:20
NGee said:
NewUsername said:
NGee said:
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.
Pipe down Poirot, it’s pretty obvious what’s gone on.Lady passes some cyclists
Lady turns across a cycle lane
There is a collision with cyclist
These are pretty much nailed on facts
You don’t need to be Columbo......
NewUsername said:
We know some facts
Lady passes some cyclists
Lady turns across a cycle lane
There is a collision with cyclist
These are pretty much nailed on facts
You don’t need to be Columbo......
And how long was it after passing them did she make the turn?Lady passes some cyclists
Lady turns across a cycle lane
There is a collision with cyclist
These are pretty much nailed on facts
You don’t need to be Columbo......
How long after making the turn was it before the cyclist hit the car?
How is it two of them missed the car but another hit it?
Unless you were there and saw it yourself then you know the same as everyone else on here, which is to say, f
k all.Centurion07 said:
How is it two of them missed the car but another hit it?
This keeps getting brought up as though it is somehow relevant. One of the few things we know about this incident is that the 3 bikes can't have been in exactly tha same place on the road as each other at the same time. Given this knowledge the fact that 2 of the bikes missed the car has absolutely no bearing on the fact that 1 hit it. Cat
I definitely know what happened. I know it for a fact.
The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
Dizeee said:
I definitely know what happened. I know it for a fact.
The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
Well, all bar that bit Inspector Clouseau.The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
KaiserDahms said:
Back in January my girlfriend was pulling into a side street, there were three cyclists travelling the same direction but we're pretty far away from the junction.
She pulled in and one cyclist went past with no issue but the other had kept closer to the pavement and clipped the back of her car.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
She pulled in and one cyclist went past with no issue but the other had kept closer to the pavement and clipped the back of her car.
Ambulance, police etc came out. Cyclists said they were not paying attention etc.
Girlfriend called the police to get an update on what happened to the person. Advised that they were fine and ambulance people took her to a&e and nothing showed on x-ray.
Tonight her insurance company contacted her to advise the cyclist is claiming for injuries. Is it normal for this to happen 7 months later?.
- Updated to a group of 3 cyclists
Edited by KaiserDahms on Wednesday 8th July 19:13
Cat said:
Given this knowledge the fact that 2 of the bikes missed the car has absolutely no bearing on the fact that 1 hit it.
Cat said:
Several posters have claimed that because 2 bikes missed the car the 3rd one should also have avoided it and because they didn't it means the cyclist must have been at fault. This is complete nonsense.
It might not prove anything 100% but you claiming it as irrelevant isn’t correct either. The key piece of information is that the first cyclist did not hit the car, this is fact. This was the first cyclist to take avoiding action, fact.
If it was the first cyclist that hit the car and the second and third cyclists that avoided it... this would be a totally different scenario as it suggests that the car has cut up the cyclists and the first one has had no where to go.
Indeed, the cyclist that did hit the car could have 1) had their view blocked by another cyclist, 2) been sandwiched physically by another cyclist, 3) been looking down, 4) even been on their mobile phone.
However, the fact remains that two cyclists (one of which was in front) avoided making contact with the car. I don’t mean to state the obvious, but if the cyclist that hit the car was not actually there, then no accident would have taken place. The car would have pulled onto the drop kerb and the two cyclists would have gone around the car without incident.
Regardless of how you dress it up, on the basis that two cyclists avoided the car; it means that there was something to do with the third cyclist that contributed, somewhat, to the accident. Whether it was their position, their attention, or their behaviour I do not know. But as two cyclists did not hit the car you cannot automatically assume that it is the fault of the car driver that contact was made... especially when you also consider that contact was made at the back of the car.
To say that the two other cyclists not hitting the car has no bearing on the other cyclist hitting it is nonsense, Cat.
Edited by roadsmash on Saturday 11th July 22:33
Dizeee said:
I definitely know what happened. I know it for a fact.
The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
The 3 bikes were all together or more or less together and then the car turned and the wheels were at 45 degrees then bike 1 saw it so braked and bike 2 then deviated to the right a bit and also braked then the car started to turn so bike 1 and 2 deviated left a bit then bike 3 saw this and started to brake a bit but not enough then the car went in to the junction with bike 1 and 2 clear which left bike 3 which had partially obstructed view now on a collision path then it clipped the front of the car.
Inarguable facts.
Close thread.
gazza285 said:
Centurion07 said:
How is it two of them missed the car but another hit it?
The OP has already said that the one that hit the car was nearer the pavement than the other two cyclists. Different positions on the cycle lane have lead to a different end result.I was making the point for the people that seem to think as two missed it the third should've as well, regardless of completely different road positions.
Centurion07 said:
I know!!
I was making the point for the people that seem to think as two missed it the third should've as well, regardless of completely different road positions.
Don't worry too much about it, there doesn't seem to be a huge understanding of the difference road position makes when cycling amongst the motoring public... I was making the point for the people that seem to think as two missed it the third should've as well, regardless of completely different road positions.
Besides, the mere fact that the cyclist could have taken a course of action that avoided the collision doesn't make it their fault. I dare say that, had they been riding up the middle of the traffic lane, instead of using the cycle path, this whole debacle wouldn't have happened, as OP's girlfriend would have been forced into a proper overtaking mindset, and likely faced oncoming traffic (and, if not, the cyclists may have been able to go around more easily).
I wonder why the incorrect time and date is on the claim details that the OP’s partner had received?
No win no fee telemarketer: “Hi, our records show you’ve been in an accident that wasn’t your fault...”
Cyclist: “Hi, no I have no........ wait a sec, yes I have!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! Do you when this was at all?”
Cyclist: “Oh god sorry, no I don’t know the exact date it was so long ago!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “That’s OK, when roughly was it?”
Cyclist: “Oh around January sometime.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “No problem I’ll put 1st January... do you know what time it was?”
Cyclist: “Oh gosh no sorry I’ve got no idea, in the afternoon sometime around 3pm at a guess I suppose.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! I’ll put down 3pm then.”
And here we are today.
No win no fee telemarketer: “Hi, our records show you’ve been in an accident that wasn’t your fault...”
Cyclist: “Hi, no I have no........ wait a sec, yes I have!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! Do you when this was at all?”
Cyclist: “Oh god sorry, no I don’t know the exact date it was so long ago!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “That’s OK, when roughly was it?”
Cyclist: “Oh around January sometime.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “No problem I’ll put 1st January... do you know what time it was?”
Cyclist: “Oh gosh no sorry I’ve got no idea, in the afternoon sometime around 3pm at a guess I suppose.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! I’ll put down 3pm then.”
And here we are today.
roadsmash said:
I wonder why the incorrect time and date is on the claim details that the OP’s partner had received?
No win no fee telemarketer: “Hi, our records show you’ve been in an accident that wasn’t your fault...”
Cyclist: “Hi, no I have no........ wait a sec, yes I have!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! Do you when this was at all?”
Cyclist: “Oh god sorry, no I don’t know the exact date it was so long ago!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “That’s OK, when roughly was it?”
Cyclist: “Oh around January sometime.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “No problem I’ll put 1st January... do you know what time it was?”
Cyclist: “Oh gosh no sorry I’ve got no idea, in the afternoon sometime around 3pm at a guess I suppose.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! I’ll put down 3pm then.”
And here we are today.
And here we are again, reading a load of bNo win no fee telemarketer: “Hi, our records show you’ve been in an accident that wasn’t your fault...”
Cyclist: “Hi, no I have no........ wait a sec, yes I have!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! Do you when this was at all?”
Cyclist: “Oh god sorry, no I don’t know the exact date it was so long ago!”
No win no fee telemarketer: “That’s OK, when roughly was it?”
Cyclist: “Oh around January sometime.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “No problem I’ll put 1st January... do you know what time it was?”
Cyclist: “Oh gosh no sorry I’ve got no idea, in the afternoon sometime around 3pm at a guess I suppose.”
No win no fee telemarketer: “Great! I’ll put down 3pm then.”
And here we are today.
ks. I though you had gone down the giddy Youtuber in it for clicks line? There’s only one of you, try and get your story straight.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff