Even if the driver is a nobber. It doesn't excuse the cyclist of his own responsibilities for his safety and road sense.
Cyclist plague spreading
- Thread starter altus
- Start date
Even if the driver is a nobber. It doesn't excuse the cyclist of his own responsibilities for his safety and road sense.
From the information available, fault could reasonably lie with the cyclist, the driver, or both parties. The only point of certainty is that the driver broke the law by leaving the scene. This is what sparked the publicity campaign, and reasonably so.
Lack of insurance on the cyclist's part makes no difference whatsoever if he is willing to swap details. It just means the liability for any damages he causes rests solely on his shoulders; there isn't a lawyer to hide behind!
Lack of insurance on the cyclist's part makes no difference whatsoever if he is willing to swap details. It just means the liability for any damages he causes rests solely on his shoulders; there isn't a lawyer to hide behind!
I would say, given the facts we currently have, that both parties are at fault to one degree or another...the failure to swap details is a separate issue.
I've been on my bike and had somebody suddenly pass me, totally unnecessarily, only to then brake hard to make a left hand turn in front of me, rather than just waiting a second. Luckily I've always been able to stop and while it may be true that the person behind is responsible for their speed and distance between the vehicle in front, its not quite as clear cut as that when somebody does something like that, as you have been forced into that position.
To be honest unless I know the full facts of what happened I can't say. It amazes how the power posters wade in one side or the other with no evidence whatsoever to back anything up. 
All I can say as a Stoke fan is **** off people who ride these contraptions.
All I can say as a Stoke fan is **** off people who ride these contraptions.
The failure to swap details IS the issue. The assignment of blame is a needless temptation that everyone finds it ridiculously easy to yield to. It however adds nothing constructive to the topic at hand!
You have been able to stop because unlike this chap, you took precautions and had sufficient road sense to do so...
It is a separate issue to the one most people are discussing. It is the only issue the Police are probably interested in, but that is not the point being made by most people.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I always thought that the person behind is responsible in such accidents. I was in situations where certain bad people overtook a car I was in, cut it off, then proceeded to break. When police got to the scene the car I was in (I was not the driver) was concluded to be at fault because all evidence they had is that car I was in was behind.
I have had that done to me countless times but I always keep the distance.
I can't quite wrap my head around how the cyclist got into this situation, he couldn't have been travelling so fast that he could not break in time.
I have had that done to me countless times but I always keep the distance.
I can't quite wrap my head around how the cyclist got into this situation, he couldn't have been travelling so fast that he could not break in time.
Fair point. I think I'm fighting a losing battle trying to bring a base to a baseless thread to be honest. Let the bickerfest continue!
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
The problem comes down to proof over what has happened. You would agree that in that situation you would blame the other driver for the accident, they have cut in on you. You have gone into the back of the other car and without reasonable proof that they were at fault then yes you are automatically deemed to be at fault. It is for things like that I am thinking of having a camera on a dash to help with proof.
Also the police placing blame on the driver of the car you were in does not preclude them from saying to insurers it was the other guys fault. The insurers will argue it out and may not always agree with police.
Same with the scams where someone reverses into you at traffic lights then claims you hit them, or overtakes and then deliberately slams on the brakes to force an accident. Google 'crash for cash'
There`s the problem, there are a lot of people riding bikes that have no road awareness, time for cycling test`s and 3rd party insurance surely.
So if I over take another car when i'm driving, and then slam my breaks on on purpose in an attempt to get some whippy compo, thats not a thing, because the other driver should have been able to stop because they should have sufficient road sense to do so?
Cycling is a fad?
Sorry what.....?
It's a form of transport that predates cars by a long way, it was one of the first mechanised forms of transport from the 19th Century. Given its still going strong now, I think to call it just a 'fad' is more than a little shortsighted.
Oh and, Hello Troll!
I don't know how old you are, but it was not that long ago that if you saw a cyclist on the main road he was either training for a bike race or was on a driving ban.
Now I see women with two kids in a bucket over the front wheel meandering through fast moving traffic oblivious to the danger around them.
Thats the attitude of a lot of drivers but I think statistics and common sense show cyclists are way more aware than drivers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 10,647
Sounds like both of them are nobs. Reads to me like a typical militant cyclist to me and the driver couldn't be any more chilled.
Nothing drivers do surprises me anymore but I don't record it, go mental and upload a video to youtube. They aren't bad people we just seem to all get in a car and rush everywhere. I'm sure most driver don't intend to crash into cyclist but they aren't evil nazis.
That makes no sense when I re read it but I'm tired so **** it.
Nothing drivers do surprises me anymore but I don't record it, go mental and upload a video to youtube. They aren't bad people we just seem to all get in a car and rush everywhere. I'm sure most driver don't intend to crash into cyclist but they aren't evil nazis.
That makes no sense when I re read it but I'm tired so **** it.
That pretty much the shape of it....awareness and anticipation.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 1,531
^ This
There are plenty of videos on youtube of a cyclist recording their ride, a car gets within 2 feet of him and he has a huge hissy fit. The ability to have a camera seems to have made many cyclists feel it is their job to go out and criticise everyone else - and half the time in these videos they take the view of "well I wasn't doing anything wrong, why should I slow down/change course to avoid them".
Some people need to learn self preservation, and to mind their own damn business. We all make mistakes, and if it doesn't lead to any injury and they learn from it then no harm done.
Yet that is a well known scam and if the evidence is there police can and will pursue the driver that caused the accident (and that would be the one deliberately trying to cause the accident).
I can understand that we should all be aware of our surroundings when driving/cycling and that includes what it happening behind us - but we can't be expected to predict everything.
Could you run me through what your actions would be if I were to drive up behind you and proceed to overtake - would you perform an emergency stop just as I clear the front of your car? After all you should be aware that I may cut in and slam on the brakes to claim on your insurance for whiplash when you rear end me. My car may be able to stop in a shorter distance, so maybe you should stop as soon as I start to overtake?
The highway code says "If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass."
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 10,647
I don't know any reason a lovely cyclist would be asking for insurance details other than to be a ****. No damage to the car, his fault for hitting the car if the bike is damaged so i would just leave it at that.
I'm not trying to defend the driver as a cyclist myself i can only think we aren't getting the whole truth. He could have moved over in the lane forcing audi man out more and having to swerve in more whilst thinking he was clear.
Most car drivers cant see us never mind the size of the q7.
He seems like a competent cyclist and most drivers assume you're cycling slowly. I do 30 along a 30, a civic pulls out of a t junction and doesn't realise how fast im going, i pass him on the inside and gain a few more metres and make my turn off said road. I was the arse in that scenario and i believe the guy didn't pull out on purpose but assumed i was just being the usual cyclist holding up traffic.
I'm not trying to defend the driver as a cyclist myself i can only think we aren't getting the whole truth. He could have moved over in the lane forcing audi man out more and having to swerve in more whilst thinking he was clear.
Most car drivers cant see us never mind the size of the q7.
He seems like a competent cyclist and most drivers assume you're cycling slowly. I do 30 along a 30, a civic pulls out of a t junction and doesn't realise how fast im going, i pass him on the inside and gain a few more metres and make my turn off said road. I was the arse in that scenario and i believe the guy didn't pull out on purpose but assumed i was just being the usual cyclist holding up traffic.