Girlfriend and cyclist accident

[Cat]

roadsmash said:

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.

Your 1st "fact" is correct based on the OP's account. Your 2nd "fact" is simply made up. We have no idea whether the 1st bike need to take any action to avoid the car. The speed and relative positions might well have meant no action was required for them to avoid a collision.

roadsmash said:

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.

I'm not making that assumption. You are the one claiming that the cyclist must have made an error based on the fact that the other 2 didn't collide...

roadsmash said:

If the first two cyclists made it through, then the third made an error.

roadsmash said:

To say that the two other cyclists not hitting the car has no bearing on the other cyclist hitting it is nonsense, Cat.

It absolutely isn't. What absolutely is nonsense is to claim that it means the cyclist who hit the car made an error without knowing the relative positions, speeds, timings etc. of the vehicles involved.

Cat

[roadsmash]

gazza285 said:

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 bks.

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.

How is it bks? It is a very possible telephone call that led to the claim being made.

You just can’t seem to fathom that one of your own might entertain such a thing.

[roadsmash]

Cat said:

Your 1st "fact" is correct based on the OP's account. Your 2nd "fact" is simply made up. We have no idea whether the 1st bike need to take any action to avoid the car. The speed and relative positions might well have meant no action was required for them to avoid a collision.

We have to assume the OP’s account is correct on the basis lying to us does not help anyone.

Fair point regarding the second fact. It was not my intention to make it up, allow me to revise that. The first bike was the first bike to pass the car, fact.

Cat said:

I'm not making that assumption. You are the one claiming that the cyclist must have made an error based on the fact that the other 2 didn't collide...

I’m merely stating that it is possible. It is not clear cut like others are suggesting on here.

Cat said:

What absolutely is nonsense is to claim that it means the cyclist who hit the car made an error without knowing the relative positions, speeds, timings etc. of the vehicles involved.

Cat

I think you’re wrong. How on earth can you claim that from the information provided it’s nonsense that the rider could have made an error?

I think on the basis that the cyclist hit the rear of the car (i.e not the side of it) that the accident was avoidable.

How difficult is it really to avoid a car in front of you? Even if it has just pulled in front of you? Obviously it depends on the distance, something I touched on earlier. But surely a good rider will see the car go past and begin to slow, and adjust their riding accordingly, looking out for the car to turn.

Any good motorcyclist will know from their training that you are supposed to look out for such hazards.

Unfortunately, cyclists need not to participate in any relevant training to their riding.

Which is why we see so many continue at speed until the very last minute, at which point the accident becomes unavoidable.

The bus video I linked to earlier in the thread is one such example.

Let’s all take our helmets off for a moment and try to see the situation from other points of view.

[heebeegeetee]

Roadsmash, I can’t fathom why you’re so interested. To recap, nobody on this thread was there; the OP wasn’t there (and is long gone from this thread); the OP’s description of events was so poor that nobody can seem to follow what happened.

The OPs version of events came from the driver, and from what I can see, all we know about that is that it seems her driving caused 3 cyclists to take avoiding action. One of the cyclists failed to avoid the car and was taken to hospital. We have a version of what was said, but none of us know the people involved and have no way verifying the accuracy. I do think we all know that in a bump, in almost every case there is a dispute of events between parties involved, ie it’s usual for them to blame each other.

So, despite this paucity of information, 11 pages in (on my settings) you’re still going at it full on. You’ve even posted links to videos that have no connection whatsoever.

Why?

[roadsmash]

heebeegeetee said:

Roadsmash, I can’t fathom why you’re so interested. To recap, nobody on this thread was there; the OP wasn’t there (and is long gone from this thread); the OP’s description of events was so poor that nobody can seem to follow what happened.

The OPs version of events came from the driver, and from what I can see, all we know about that is that it seems her driving caused 3 cyclists to take avoiding action. One of the cyclists failed to avoid the car and was taken to hospital. We have a version of what was said, but none of us know the people involved and have no way verifying the accuracy. I do think we all know that in a bump, in almost every case there is a dispute of events between parties involved, ie it’s usual for them to blame each other.

So, despite this paucity of information, 11 pages in (on my settings) you’re still going at it full on. You’ve even posted links to videos that have no connection whatsoever.

Why?

What a bizarre question.

Because I’m entitled to? This is a discussion forum last time I checked.

I like to get stuck into topics and debate with those sensible enough to do so.

I do sometimes attract the prats who take it personally but overall I tend to enjoy the conversations I get into.

I like to think outside the box and put a different spin on things which others may not have considered.

If you don’t like reading my content may I kindly suggest you log out.

[Cat]

roadsmash said:

I’m merely stating that it is possible. It is not clear cut like others are suggesting on here.

It might be what you are stating now it isn't what you originally said. I quoted it in my last post here it is again...

roadsmash said:

If the first two cyclists made it through, then the third made an error.

no mention of it being a possibility - if 2 made it through then the 3rd made an error - if that is not what you meant then fair enough but it is what you posted

roadsmash said:

I think you’re wrong. How on earth can you claim that from the information provided it’s nonsense that the rider could have made an error?

I'm not claiming that, I'm completely open to the fact that the rider may have made an error. What I'm saying is nonsense is your statement that the 3rd rider must have made an error because the other 2 bikes didn't collide with the car.

roadsmash said:

How difficult is it really to avoid a car in front of you? Even if it has just pulled in front of you? Obviously it depends on the distance, something I touched on earlier.

It depends, it ranges from impossible to really easy. If the car stops within your reaction distance you will hit it. If it stops within your stopping distance you may hit it. Do you appreciate that a car is able to stop more quickly than a bike?

Cat

[NewUsername]

Cat said:

. Do you appreciate that a car is able to stop more quickly than a bike?

Cat

They can’t you know. Even with 90’s cantilevers my bikes have always been able to out brake cars, something my pals and I have endlessly tested over the years.

[Cat]

NewUsername said:

They can’t you know. Even with 90’s cantilevers my bikes have always been able to out brake cars, something my pals and I have endlessly tested over the years.

They can. The maximum rate of deceleration achievable on bike is about 0.5g (depending on riding position, wheelbase etc.) above this then the rear wheel starts to lift. A modern car will be capable of achieving rates in excess of 0.8g.

Cat

[NewUsername]

Cat said:

NewUsername said:

They can’t you know. Even with 90’s cantilevers my bikes have always been able to out brake cars, something my pals and I have endlessly tested over the years.

They can. The maximum rate of deceleration achievable on bike is about 0.5g (depending on riding position, wheelbase etc.) above this then the rear wheel starts to lift. A modern car will be capable of achieving rates in excess of 0.8g.

Cat

What bike? What car?

Theory < Practise

I’m talking pushbikes here

I’m sure a McLaren P1 braking into copse from 100 mph plus generates a lot of G but not your moms VW Sharan on the way back from Tesco at 30 mph, which is the sweet spot for my pushbike

Edited by NewUsername on Sunday 12th July 09:52

[NewUsername]

Cat said:

NewUsername said:

They can’t you know. Even with 90’s cantilevers my bikes have always been able to out brake cars, something my pals and I have endlessly tested over the years.

They can. The maximum rate of deceleration achievable on bike is about 0.5g (depending on riding position, wheelbase etc.) above this then the rear wheel starts to lift. A modern car will be capable of achieving rates in excess of 0.8g.

Cat

What bike? What car?

Theory < Practise

I’m talking pushbikes here

I’m sure a McLaren P1 braking into copse from 100 mph plus generates a lot of G but not your moms VW Sharan on the way back from Tesco at 30 mph, which is the sweet spot for my pushbike

Edited by NewUsername on Sunday 12th July 09:54

[Cat]

NewUsername said:

What bike? What car?

Theory < Practise

I’m talking pushbikes here

I’m sure a McLaren P1 braking into copse from 100 mph plus generates a lot of G but not your moms VW Sharan on the way back from Tesco at 30 mph, which is the sweet spot for my pushbike

On a conventional pedal cycle if you decelerate at more than about 0.5g you will go over the bars. Recumbent bikes will be capable of higher rates due to the lower CoG and longer wheelbase.

Pretty much any modern car is capable of achieving a deceleration of 0.8g, including your mom's VW Sharan.

Cat

[NewUsername]

Cat said:

NewUsername said:

What bike? What car?

Theory < Practise

I’m talking pushbikes here

I’m sure a McLaren P1 braking into copse from 100 mph plus generates a lot of G but not your moms VW Sharan on the way back from Tesco at 30 mph, which is the sweet spot for my pushbike

On a conventional pedal cycle if you decelerate at more than about 0.5g you will go over the bars. Recumbent bikes will be capable of higher rates due to the lower CoG and longer wheelbase.

Pretty much any modern car is capable of achieving a deceleration of 0.8g, including your mom's VW Sharan.

Cat

Theory vs practise

I can brake as hard as my 210mm 4 pot hydraulic discs Will allow without going over the bars. None of my friends cars can stop quicker from 30 than our bikes. We do this kind of st all the time

Also force = mass x acceleration

Edited by NewUsername on Sunday 12th July 12:09

[otolith]

NewUsername said:

Theory vs practise

I can brake as hard as my 210mm 4 pot hydraulic discs Will allow without going over the bars. None of my friends cars can stop quicker from 30 than our bikes. We do this kind of st all the time

Practice, empirically measured.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/...

Your friends have crap brakes.

[roadsmash]

All of this is largely pointless discussing at length on the basis that, unlike a car on a narrow country lane, you don’t just brake a bicycle in a straight line to avoid an accident, especially one on a decent cycle path like this.

The benefit of a bicycle is it is much easier to manoeuvre around an obstacle, just like the other two cyclists did successfully.

Besides, it’s extremely unlikely that the car and cyclist were in a stopping race. So the comparison is irrelevant here.

[otolith]

Have you ever actually ridden a bicycle?

[roadsmash]

otolith said:

Have you ever actually ridden a bicycle?

Me? I’ve just got off mine.

[otolith]

You'll no doubt then be familiar with gravel rash, which is what you get if you try to swerve sharply on a bike.

[roadsmash]

otolith said:

You'll no doubt then be familiar with gravel rash, which is what you get if you try to swerve sharply on a bike.

Well yes, if you do it sharply...

That’s a bit different to simply braking in a straight line with your eyes shut and hoping for the best.

[NGee]

otolith said:

You'll no doubt then be familiar with gravel rash, which is what you get if you try to swerve sharply on a bike.

Depends what the cyclist is wearing.

[Cat]

NewUsername said:

Theory vs practise

I can brake as hard as my 210mm 4 pot hydraulic discs Will allow without going over the bars. None of my friends cars can stop quicker from 30 than our bikes. We do this kind of st all the time

You can't. Otolith has provided a link to some real world science on the topic.

NewUsername said:

Also force = mass x acceleration

You realise this isn't relevant physics to the scenario being discussed?

Cat