Girlfriend and cyclist accident

[Pegscratch]

Solocle said:

It's a pretty reasonable presumption that they didn't try to hit the car. As for not realizing, legally, they shouldn't have had to, so it's likely not going to be anything more than 50:50.

So the video linked above, you would consider to be 50:50 because the cyclist didn't realise they had to move?

Entirely depends on a number of factors, as has been said further up the thread you can't just plough into something because you should expect there to be nothing there.

[Solocle]

Pegscratch said:

So the video linked above, you would consider to be 50:50 because the cyclist didn't realise they had to move?

Entirely depends on a number of factors, as has been said further up the thread you can't just plough into something because you should expect there to be nothing there.

Unless the car was illegally parked, then they can't expect that there's nothing there - and even then, there could be a stopped vehicle. Very different to a turn across a cycle lane. Of course, the time between the turn and the collision matters. But reaction time is something like 1.5s, if they've done a shoulder check looking for indicating vehicles, then that time could be longer, quite reasonably.

[gazza285]

Pegscratch said:

So the video linked above...

...is a completely different scenario, and has nothing to do with anything on this thread.

[roadsmash]

Pinkie15 said:

Then don't make presumptions and actually read what's before you (the OP) . Then you'd know they didn't cycle home, but were taken by ambulance to A&E.

Apologies, you’re right, it was actually Derek’s post I misread and it did confuse me. I thought he had said “cycle home” where actually he said “cycle again”.

The rest of my points, in my opinion, still stand.

As Centurion has already posted, it’s very easy to ride into the back of a parked car if you’re not paying attention, let alone a moving one.

The fact that two other cyclists avoided the car seriously weakens the third cyclist’s claim of “they caused me to crash”.

As an aside, you only have to watch a few YouTube videos to see some mental cyclists intentionally hold their position, completely forgetting they’re riding on a tiny metal frame and are up against a 1-2t car.

Or in this case... a bus (skip to 2 minutes):

https://youtu.be/hL5bxKEjfvI

For clarity I must say the bus is obviously completely in the wrong, but the determination of the cyclist to keep cycling next to such a huge vehicle is incredibly stupid and reminiscent, in my opinion, of what has happened to the cyclist claiming against the OP.

[roadsmash]

Solocle said:

It's a pretty reasonable presumption that they didn't try to hit the car.

See my last post.

[PurpleTurtle]

OP - you have not specifically stated as far as I can see (apols if you have) this is a shared pavement/cycle lane, yes, and the cyclists were trracelling along that, but your GF overtook them then they were back at the bus stop and she then turned in straight away, but was for whatever reason unable to fully complete that manouevre, her car fully/partially blocking the cycle lane, with one of three cyclists collding with it. Is that a fair summary?

If so you Insurance company should assign their junior/trainee lawyer to this and let them have their first go at laughing these ambuiance chasers out of Court.

I was involved in a fairly serious shunt on the M25 about a decade ago, hit from behind whilst stationary by a car doing 50mph that had failed to see stopped traffic. Remarkably I walked away without a scratch (good advert for the Mk6 Golf) but my girlfriend at the time who was driving copped for whiplash. She got the No Win No Fee brigade on the case, who then continually harassed me to put in a claim for compo, even though there was nothing wrong with me. Shysters.

[Centurion07]

roadsmash said:

The fact that two other cyclists avoided the car seriously weakens the third cyclist’s claim of “they caused me to crash”.

Depends entirely on HOW they avoided the car.

If the third cyclist was boxed in against the kerb by the other two who then managed to take avoiding action around the back of the car as it turned then it's hardly his fault.

roadsmash said:

the determination of the cyclist to keep cycling next to such a huge vehicle is incredibly stupid and reminiscent, in my opinion, of what has happened to the cyclist claiming against the OP.

Which is based on nothing more than assumption...

[roadsmash]

Centurion07 said:

roadsmash said:

The fact that two other cyclists avoided the car seriously weakens the third cyclist’s claim of “they caused me to crash”.

Depends entirely on HOW they avoided the car.

If the third cyclist was boxed in against the kerb by the other two who then managed to take avoiding action around the back of the car as it turned then it's hardly his fault.

roadsmash said:

the determination of the cyclist to keep cycling next to such a huge vehicle is incredibly stupid and reminiscent, in my opinion, of what has happened to the cyclist claiming against the OP.

Which is based on nothing more than assumption...

To be honest with you I happen to think any cyclist that crashes into the rear of a car is a crap rider.

During my own cycling experience, I’ve had all sorts jump out in front of me and with decent observation of my surroundings I’ve found it very easy to not hit anything.

You can stop a bicycle on a dime, there’s no excuse.

Of course, if the OP’s partner had literally swerved in front of them last minute I’d have a different opinion, obviously. But based on 1) the information provided by the OP 2) the fact that two cyclists avoided the car fine and 3) the police deciding there was no careless or dangerous driving at play... I’m confident to “presume” that the cyclist is at fault.

There’s plenty of st drivers out there, probably a few on this thread, but you can’t just defend a cyclist going up the back of a car because you’re a cyclist too (aimed at everyone, not Centurion).

FYI it’s not presumptuous to form an opinion based on the information provided. This is PistonHeads after all.

[Pinkie15]

roadsmash said:

Pinkie15 said:

Then don't make presumptions and actually read what's before you (the OP) . Then you'd know they didn't cycle home, but were taken by ambulance to A&E.

Apologies, you’re right, it was actually Derek’s post I misread and it did confuse me. I thought he had said “cycle home” where actually he said “cycle again”.

The rest of my points, in my opinion, still stand.

As Centurion has already posted, it’s very easy to ride into the back of a parked car if you’re not paying attention, let alone a moving one.

The fact that two other cyclists avoided the car seriously weakens the third cyclist’s claim of “they caused me to crash”.

As an aside, you only have to watch a few YouTube videos to see some mental cyclists intentionally hold their position, completely forgetting they’re riding on a tiny metal frame and are up against a 1-2t car.

Or in this case... a bus (skip to 2 minutes):

https://youtu.be/hL5bxKEjfvI

For clarity I must say the bus is obviously completely in the wrong, but the determination of the cyclist to keep cycling next to such a huge vehicle is incredibly stupid and reminiscent, in my opinion, of what has happened to the cyclist claiming against the OP.

Your other points are plausible, though I can also imagine a scenario where the third cyclist couldn't manoeuvre round the car (though they could have possibly still applied brakes & stopped)

In respect of injury, also entirely possible they've done serious damage not immediately obvious at time.

e.g. something I'm going through at the moment - stick arm out and land on outstretched hand = sore wrist. X-ray for potential wrist (scaphoid) fracture, nothing shows up (not unusual for scaph fracture, which can take 2-4 wks to show on x-ray). Still nothing showing on subsequent x-rays, but continued pain over months, gets a MRI, shows ligament tear. Might need surgery to repair and several months immobilised.

Some wrist ligament injuries lead to relatively quick degeneration and severe loss of movement & grip strength

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Maybe the bike is damaged? Just because you can't see any damage doesn't mean it isn't there. Most shops refuse always recommend replacing a frame after any impact with a car...

A couple of years ago a friend of mine was taken out by a numpty who turning right straight across our paths - my mate executed a fine aerial somersault and landed in the centre of the cars roof, breaking there windscreen. The car was written off and the my mate got off with light bruising. He as more concerned about his bike and completing a Strava challenge.

The bike looked ok, a bike shop checked it over and said they couldn't find any damage but recommended claiming to replace the frame anyway... He continued to ride it for a couple of weeks while waiting for the insurance company to pay out - that was until he found a small hole in the frame where the seat stay hit the cars roof. After finding the damage he decided to stay safe and leave the bike well alone until a new one was provided.

[gazza285]

So we have a car turning over a dropped kerb and across a cycle way, in front of three cyclists, yet because two cyclists managed to miss the car by a completely unknown margin, the cyclist who did hit the car, about whom it has already been said was nearer the pavement, and so had further to go to avoid the car than the other two, is entirely at fault, because the two that didn’t have as far to swerve missed?

[Mandalore]

Centurion07 said:

roadsmash said:

The fact that two other cyclists avoided the car seriously weakens the third cyclist’s claim of “they caused me to crash”.

Depends entirely on HOW they avoided the car.

If the third cyclist was boxed in against the kerb by the other two who then managed to take avoiding action around the back of the car as it turned then it's hardly his fault.

roadsmash said:

the determination of the cyclist to keep cycling next to such a huge vehicle is incredibly stupid and reminiscent, in my opinion, of what has happened to the cyclist claiming against the OP.

Which is based on nothing more than assumption...

[Pothole]

The Mad Monk said:

Pothole said:

My first instinct would be for the GF to respond to the claim by saying she was nowhere near that location on that date and time, unless by some coincidence she was.

You are saying that she should say she wasn't there - unless she was there!

Do you charge for advice?

OP said:

Not sure if it makes much of a difference but they've said the accident happened on a different date at a different time.

Keep up.

[Solocle]

roadsmash said:

During my own cycling experience, I’ve had all sorts jump out in front of me and with decent observation of my surroundings I’ve found it very easy to not hit anything.

You can stop a bicycle on a dime, there’s no excuse.

You most assuredly cannot stop a bicycle on a dime when hurtling down a Yorkshire hill at over 50 mph

Just because that's your experience of cycling, lower speeds, doesn't mean it's universal.

A bike at 10 mph stops on a dime. At 20 mph, you need a bit of braking distance. At 30, you need a somewhat considerable braking distance.
Stopping distance from 50 mph is getting close to 100m.

[Pothole]

Solocle said:

roadsmash said:

During my own cycling experience, I’ve had all sorts jump out in front of me and with decent observation of my surroundings I’ve found it very easy to not hit anything.

You can stop a bicycle on a dime, there’s no excuse.

You most assuredly cannot stop a bicycle on a dime when hurtling down a Yorkshire hill at over 50 mph

Just because that's your experience of cycling, lower speeds, doesn't mean it's universal.

A bike at 10 mph stops on a dime. At 20 mph, you need a bit of braking distance. At 30, you need a somewhat considerable braking distance.
Stopping distance from 50 mph is getting close to 100m.

Relevance of 50mph down a hill in Yorkshire to the pictured actual scenario?

[IanJ9375]

Solocle said:

Stopping distance from 50 mph is getting close to 100m.

Unless of course you decide to use a large object such as the back of a car then you can dramatically decrease those stopping distances lol

[Solocle]

Pothole said:

Relevance of 50mph down a hill in Yorkshire to the pictured actual scenario?

Exaggerated counterpoint to "stopping on a dime". Because even at 20 mph, you can't do that - and that speed is potentially relevant to the actual scenario.

[Cat]

roadsmash said:

You can stop a bicycle on a dime, there’s no excuse.

Cyclist have reaction times just like at everyone else.

At 15mph and using a reaction time of 1.5 seconds the bike will travel over 10 metres before the rider even begins to apply the brakes. Not really sure that constitutes stopping on a dime.

Cat

[roadsmash]

Like I say, the facts are that the bike went up the back of the car, the police said there was no dodgy driving at play, and the two other bikes avoided the car.

It is plainly obvious to me that the rider wasn’t paying appropriate attention to the road and/or has intentionally driven closely to the car to make a point and cocked up.

Let’s just remember, the rider has hit the car, not the other way around. I think people are forgetting that bit.

[hyphen]

roadsmash said:

Let’s just remember, the rider has hit the car, not the other way around. I think people are forgetting that bit.

If you go into the back of another vehicle, isn't the Insurance rule that the initial presumption is that it was your fault.