Girlfriend and cyclist accident
Discussion
Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happened.
OP’s partner driving along in her own little bubble, blissfully unaware she’s just passed three cyclists, decides to turn left.
The three cyclists see the blockage and two of them go round her successfully.
The third, remembers his helmet-camera is recording and realises he could upload an exciting video to YouTube if he gets as close as possible to her car, swears, and perhaps give her car a punch for good measure.
He goes in, for the killer footage, camera recording light flashing away, and cocks it up.
Bang!
He’s smashed right into her!
Police are called and realise it’s “another one of those” and go on their way.
Cyclist then reviews footage after the accident and is disappointed that it’s worthy of less than 100 views and maybe a few comments saying he could have just gone around her, or braked.
Disappointed with messing up, the cyclist brings up the incident for several months afterwards, whenever a conversation of bad drivers comes up, he uses this little anecdote to support how car drivers are obviously the devil.
Eventually someone says “cor you should have claimed for a bit of compo on that! Have you still got her reg?”
And here we are today.
OP’s partner driving along in her own little bubble, blissfully unaware she’s just passed three cyclists, decides to turn left.
The three cyclists see the blockage and two of them go round her successfully.
The third, remembers his helmet-camera is recording and realises he could upload an exciting video to YouTube if he gets as close as possible to her car, swears, and perhaps give her car a punch for good measure.
He goes in, for the killer footage, camera recording light flashing away, and cocks it up.
Bang!
He’s smashed right into her!
Police are called and realise it’s “another one of those” and go on their way.
Cyclist then reviews footage after the accident and is disappointed that it’s worthy of less than 100 views and maybe a few comments saying he could have just gone around her, or braked.
Disappointed with messing up, the cyclist brings up the incident for several months afterwards, whenever a conversation of bad drivers comes up, he uses this little anecdote to support how car drivers are obviously the devil.
Eventually someone says “cor you should have claimed for a bit of compo on that! Have you still got her reg?”
And here we are today.
People wonder why there is widespread significant disdain for cyclists. I'd say it is reasonable on the evidence given (i.e. at least one of the cyclists that made it past was in front) it was a case of "I'll teach you" gone wrong or not paying attention/not in full control. To bring a claim this far on in the day is risible, however "legal" it is.
However the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt d
heads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.
However the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt d
heads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.zzrman said:
A500leroy said:
Yes it is normal for claims to take this long to come through. Has the cyclist/your girlfriend got witnesses? May be important, i mean for all you know the cyclist ran into the back of the car which would make the claim fail.
Two of them had no problem avoiding the car. The 3rd one can't have been paying attention. Their own stupid fault.It's not clear cut, we have second hand information and some holes;
If the first 2 cyclists managed to go round the back of her car then there could be some argument for negligence on the cyclists, we've all seen them nose to tail obscuring each other's view of the road ahead.
Was OP's girlfriend moving when the cyclist hit or had she stopped on the pavement with part of her car in cycle lane? if stopped how long had she been stopped for? If she was moving then the first 2 riders would have needed to take more avoiding action and managed it.
It actually sounds like no collision was made based on no damage to the car or bike. The cyclist has been paying too little attention, caught sight of the car late as the rider in front moved out to go round, hit the brakes and went over handlebars. 100% of this could be wrong.
OP, probably worth asking for a copy of the police report paying particular attention to the placement of the vehicle and any impact.
roadsmash said:
Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happened.
...
And here we are today.
...
And here we are today.
The world would be a much nicer place to be if (camera d
heads and militant cyclists) people didn't seem to attach ludicrous value to the top layer of their skin and a few hours in a hospital. To that end if the North West area's "legal" profession were to disappear overnight I doubt many would lose sleep.roadsmash said:
Doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happened.
OP’s partner driving along in her own little bubble, blissfully unaware she’s just passed three cyclists, decides to turn left.
The three cyclists see the blockage and two of them go round her successfully.
The third, remembers his helmet-camera is recording and realises he could upload an exciting video to YouTube if he gets as close as possible to her car, swears, and perhaps give her car a punch for good measure.
He goes in, for the killer footage, camera recording light flashing away, and cocks it up.
Bang!
He’s smashed right into her!
Police are called and realise it’s “another one of those” and go on their way.
Cyclist then reviews footage after the accident and is disappointed that it’s worthy of less than 100 views and maybe a few comments saying he could have just gone around her, or braked.
Disappointed with messing up, the cyclist brings up the incident for several months afterwards, whenever a conversation of bad drivers comes up, he uses this little anecdote to support how car drivers are obviously the devil.
Eventually someone says “cor you should have claimed for a bit of compo on that! Have you still got her reg?”
And here we are today.
What a load of bOP’s partner driving along in her own little bubble, blissfully unaware she’s just passed three cyclists, decides to turn left.
The three cyclists see the blockage and two of them go round her successfully.
The third, remembers his helmet-camera is recording and realises he could upload an exciting video to YouTube if he gets as close as possible to her car, swears, and perhaps give her car a punch for good measure.
He goes in, for the killer footage, camera recording light flashing away, and cocks it up.
Bang!
He’s smashed right into her!
Police are called and realise it’s “another one of those” and go on their way.
Cyclist then reviews footage after the accident and is disappointed that it’s worthy of less than 100 views and maybe a few comments saying he could have just gone around her, or braked.
Disappointed with messing up, the cyclist brings up the incident for several months afterwards, whenever a conversation of bad drivers comes up, he uses this little anecdote to support how car drivers are obviously the devil.
Eventually someone says “cor you should have claimed for a bit of compo on that! Have you still got her reg?”
And here we are today.
ks.Pegscratch said:
People wonder why there is widespread significant disdain for cyclists. I'd say it is reasonable on the evidence given (i.e. at least one of the cyclists that made it past was in front) it was a case of "I'll teach you" gone wrong or not paying attention/not in full control. To bring a claim this far on in the day is risible, however "legal" it is.
However the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt dheads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.
What a load of bHowever the moral bankruptcy of the cyclist aside the chances are they were egged on by someone; so they're more than likely just morally bankrupt d
heads rather than maliciously claiming out of spite.ks.OP, this is why you're insured. Your OH has given away her rights to her insurer and they will make the decision to either accept or fight the claim on her behalf. All she can do is provide whatever evidence she has and let them get on with it.
It may seem unfair if you end up with a fault claim, though it should rankle less than being £3k to £4k out of pocket following a claim against you with no insurance.
It may seem unfair if you end up with a fault claim, though it should rankle less than being £3k to £4k out of pocket following a claim against you with no insurance.
No one on this thread (including the OP) actually knows what happened.
The general consensus of opinion seems to be that it was the car drivers fault, although I have no idea how they have arrived at this decision as no one was there.
So just to balance things up a bit I'd like to agree with 'Roadsmash' and am of the opinion that it was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'.
Of course I may be wrong but I'm in good company of everybody else on this thread that feels they can comment on something they have no idea about!
The general consensus of opinion seems to be that it was the car drivers fault, although I have no idea how they have arrived at this decision as no one was there.
So just to balance things up a bit I'd like to agree with 'Roadsmash' and am of the opinion that it was caused by some lowlife scum who just wanted some 'compensaaashun'.
Of course I may be wrong but I'm in good company of everybody else on this thread that feels they can comment on something they have no idea about!
It doesn't really matter how stupid the cyclist(s) were or how much they contributed to the accident.
The frank truth is that your GF has insurance in place because there are people out there on the roads without any, and the injured person has to claim from someone, if they have truly suffered monetarily.
Let the insurance company deal with it and move on with your life.
andburg said:
regardless of whether the rider was paying attention, OP's girlfriend did not complete her turn across the cycle lane before the cyclists arrived, the cyclists should not have needed to take any avoiding action. Its not like she had broken down and the car was stuck there with hazard lights and a warning triangle.
It's not clear cut, we have second hand information and some holes;
If the first 2 cyclists managed to go round the back of her car then there could be some argument for negligence on the cyclists, we've all seen them nose to tail obscuring each other's view of the road ahead.
Was OP's girlfriend moving when the cyclist hit or had she stopped on the pavement with part of her car in cycle lane? if stopped how long had she been stopped for? If she was moving then the first 2 riders would have needed to take more avoiding action and managed it.
It actually sounds like no collision was made based on no damage to the car or bike. The cyclist has been paying too little attention, caught sight of the car late as the rider in front moved out to go round, hit the brakes and went over handlebars. 100% of this could be wrong.
OP, probably worth asking for a copy of the police report paying particular attention to the placement of the vehicle and any impact.
I've had a minor collision where basically no damage resulted to car or bike. Car turned right cross my path, but there was an obstruction of the side road they were turning into - so, where they would have cleared my path, they stopped. I didn't have the ability to go around (oncoming lane?), so I braked, and ran into their side. I stayed upright, there was a tyre mark on their side, and my handlebars were at an angle.It's not clear cut, we have second hand information and some holes;
If the first 2 cyclists managed to go round the back of her car then there could be some argument for negligence on the cyclists, we've all seen them nose to tail obscuring each other's view of the road ahead.
Was OP's girlfriend moving when the cyclist hit or had she stopped on the pavement with part of her car in cycle lane? if stopped how long had she been stopped for? If she was moving then the first 2 riders would have needed to take more avoiding action and managed it.
It actually sounds like no collision was made based on no damage to the car or bike. The cyclist has been paying too little attention, caught sight of the car late as the rider in front moved out to go round, hit the brakes and went over handlebars. 100% of this could be wrong.
OP, probably worth asking for a copy of the police report paying particular attention to the placement of the vehicle and any impact.
After the driver apologized profusely, and it was clear I was OK, I just tugged my handlebars back to straight and was on my way!
NGee said:
Genuinely interested to know how you know this information?
Agreed. The "evidence" as presented thus far is that two people managed to proceed without falling off. From my years riding bicycles and motorcycles my observation generally is if other people can approach a situation without crashing then it is experience and ability that differentiates us...NGee said:
andburg said:
regardless of whether the rider was paying attention, OP's girlfriend did not complete her turn across the cycle lane before the cyclists arrived,.................
Genuinely interested to know how you know this information?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.
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.
It reads to me that the cyclist who was on the inside of the cycle lane collided with the rear of the vehicle which was still within the lane. If the car was clear of the cycle lane I'm sure the OP would have mentioned it.
Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff