Speaking objectively; I couldnt really care if the cyclist comes off worse, they caused the accident and should have the appropiate cover to compensate the driver of the car - in this case, insurance. If the reverse happens then by all means the driver should hold his hands up and except liability. I dont have an issue with this.
I not sure how this is relevent to the discussion of liability, could you please explain?
Material goods and all that; I understand. But once the dust has settled why should I be left out of pocket (repair bill, depreciation of car). To say a cyclist is unlikely to scratch a car and then talk about the 2 times you've hit a car is laughable at best.
Apologies if I take pride in something I worked damn hard to pay for. It staggers me you have such a flippant view on your own property. Sure if someone brushes a wing mirror its not a big issue, but when they physically damage the vechicle, whether it just be a scratch, and then they play ignorant as if it's there god given right is an outrage.
It's not relevant to a discussion of liability.
That's why I said to disregard that, as if the Cyclist jumped a red light and was hit by a car, they would be breaking the law.
The point still stands though, that in any road traffic accident involving a cyclist, where nobody specifically has broken the law, the cyclist is still always going to come off worse.
Laughable, hitting a car two times?
I pointed out that to show that in all my years of cycling, that I've only been involved in an accident twice. Neither were my fault and was the result of the motorist doing something wrong. I've had far more accidents in my car where somebody has hit me. As I also pointed out, both times there was no damage done to the vehicles. Have you actually ever had a cyclist physically damage your car, or is to just a fear you have?
For the record, I never said it was anyone's 'God Given' right to damage somebody's car and get away with it. I simply pointed out that it doesn't happen as much as you seem to make out it does, you seem to be implying that Cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they might come within a few inches of your car.
I'm simply trying to point out that every car I've ever owned, for that matter my family has owned and the majority of people I know, all have scratches on their cars caused by other people in Car Parks. I don't know how long you have been driving, but unless it's not been very long, I can't believe you haven't suffered a scratch like so too.
Yes it annoys me that my Car has scratches on it, but what am I supposed to do about that, who am I supposed to get mad at? It happens and you can't do a lot about it unless you intend not to drive it at all. If a Cyclist actually hit and did scratch you, then you would be in your rights to call the Police if they didn't stop at the scene of an accident. If a Cyclist really was to do any serious damage to your car, the chances are that the Cyclist wouldn't be getting up in a hurry, because any accident involving a car and a cycle is going to involve the bike taking the brunt of the damage. I've never had a Cyclist damage my car in Central London, which without doubt has the heaviest cycle traffic in the country.
What I'm trying to say is that you can just as easily get a small scratch from another car, or a motorbiker (just as likely to brush past you in traffic as a Cyclist).
