Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
otolith said:
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 s
t all the time
Practice, empirically measured.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 s
t all the time https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/...
Your friends have crap brakes.
The G You are quoting in your ‘study’ in this case is the force, mass is self explanatory and a is acceleration (deceleration here)
For clarity deceleration is the braking performance on the tarmac
As I said experience beats theory that you don’t understand every day of the week.
NewUsername said:
F = ma
The G You are quoting in your ‘study’ in this case is the force, mass is self explanatory and a is acceleration (deceleration here)
For clarity deceleration is the braking performance on the tarmac
As I said experience beats theory that you don’t understand every day of the week.
There is much irony in your last line given the rest of the post. The G You are quoting in your ‘study’ in this case is the force, mass is self explanatory and a is acceleration (deceleration here)
For clarity deceleration is the braking performance on the tarmac
As I said experience beats theory that you don’t understand every day of the week.
Cat
NewUsername said:
otolith said:
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.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 s
t all the time https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/...
Your friends have crap brakes.
The G You are quoting in your ‘study’ in this case is the force, mass is self explanatory and a is acceleration (deceleration here)
For clarity deceleration is the braking performance on the tarmac
As I said experience beats theory that you don’t understand every day of the week.
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?.
Your girlfriend's insurer will pay and that will be the end of it. The car always pay when there is a cyclist involved. I had one crashing into the side of my car (there was no argument about his fault), yet my insurance paid for some black marks on his arms.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
roadsmash said:
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?Cat
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.
Foss62 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that a ‘good rider’ in a cycle lane should slow down every time a car goes past, on the basis that the car might turn in front of them? Presumably, as the hapless trio were travelling at 5mph anyway (according to the OP), they should all have resorted to track stands for a couple of minutes just in case?
Read what I said again and give it another go. 
roadsmash said:
Foss62 said:
Are you seriously suggesting that a ‘good rider’ in a cycle lane should slow down every time a car goes past, on the basis that the car might turn in front of them? Presumably, as the hapless trio were travelling at 5mph anyway (according to the OP), they should all have resorted to track stands for a couple of minutes just in case?
Read what I said again and give it another go. . However, returning to the lack of information, the car might have already been travelling slowly when it passed the cyclists (for any number of reasons seemingly unconnected with an imminent left turn), or there might, for example, be a more prominent left turn just beyond the dropped kerb one. NGee said:
Brads67 said:
She cut across a cyclist on a dedicated cycle lane.
She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
Were you there? How do you know that it happened as you say?She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
The OP (who wasn't there either) said that the vulnerable road user hit her.
I'll start by saying you have pretty much negated any credibility of your opinion based on the dross about motorcyclists, but hey ho.
Regards the above.
This entire thread is based on the info given by the OP so what exactly do you want any comments about the incident to be based on ?
The entire forum is filled with threads discussing things that no one on the thread witnessed.
You're version of the internet would be pretty empty I reckon.
But anyway, only bad motorcyclists get knocked off hahahahaha total dross.
Brads67 said:
NGee said:
Brads67 said:
She cut across a cyclist on a dedicated cycle lane.
She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
Were you there? How do you know that it happened as you say?She caused an accident and hit a vulnerable road user.
The OP (who wasn't there either) said that the vulnerable road user hit her.
The entire forum is filled with threads discussing things that no one on the thread witnessed.
You're version of the internet would be pretty empty I reckon.
You're version of the internet would be pretty useless if people could say anything they like and pass it off as fact.
Although to be fair that does cover quite a lot of the internet and most PH threads!
Woman overtakes cyclists. Woman turns left across bike lane and cyclists path assuming because she is in front she has right of way. Woman hits cyclists, or causes cyclist to crash. Woman thinks she gets away with it. Cyclist seven months later files claim, legal or not. PH argues about it to the nth degree, one poster assumes it was an alien death ray from space. Insurance pays out. Insurance company if feeling there is a grievance will instruct private company to follow cyclist to determine if it is true. OP never updates thread.
BobSaunders said:
Woman overtakes cyclists. Woman turns left across bike lane and cyclists path assuming because she is in front she has right of way. Woman hits cyclists, or causes cyclist to crash. Woman thinks she gets away with it. Cyclist seven months later files claim, legal or not. PH argues about it to the nth degree, one poster assumes it was an alien death ray from space. Insurance pays out. Insurance company if feeling there is a grievance will instruct private company to follow cyclist to determine if it is true. OP never updates thread.
Its a theory, I suppose. 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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff