Accident with cyclist - Seeking advice

Cyclist might've just seen the car parked on the pavement, saw the front of yours and thought it was just another idiot motorist parked on the pavement. Not saying he was right (he wasn't, shouldn't be on the pavement), just why he might've not slowed down.

Seems like a nasty bit of road tbf, a junction without markings right next to a zebra. It seems more than a driveway as its shared with other vehicles too, is the kerb dropped (can't really tell from the video).
 
My lights were on though as it has daytime running lights so it wouldn't have looked parked. Plus my indicator was on

But yeah you are right it's not the best place for an entrance as it's concealed from the road heavily by the houses either side

There is a dropped kerb there
 
Cyclist myself and definitely see the cyclist here at complete fault. Whilst you pulled out slightly it wasn't at speed at all, you were cautious and he came out suddenly at speed from the pavement. He's an idiot and seeing people do that really does put drivers off cyclists which is a shame really. Things would be much easier if people just used a bit of common sense and weren't in such a rush all the time.
 
Very similar to an incident I had with a cyclist. You'll have to accept liability because he was there to be seen and you moved into his path.

In my case I had no damage and I paid £100 directly to the bike shop that did his repairs. He kept his word and didn't claim.

In your case you have damage and there's nothing stopping him from claiming pi too so it might be best just to claim.

Whatever you do, tell your insurers. If he has a brain haemorrhage or something in a couple of days your insurers will be wondering why you didn't tell them.
 
His fault for not reading the road (and being on the pavement), but the clip proves that you pulled out as he was coming.

Maybe it looks worse than it is but you should have seen him before pulling off.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well yes I did look left, but why would I look left as the last thing before turning left to join the direction of incoming traffic though?

The last place you would look before moving is to the right,surely, where the traffic is coming from?
Click to expand...
Last place you look before moving is right in front of you. Because if you're going to hit anything, that's where it will be.

People don't, though. 'i was looking at the gap', heard that a couple of times after being driven into the back of.
 
hornetstinger said:
Cynic in me makes me thinks he hit the bumper on purpose to get a claim.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is supported by the shock expression on his face ?

However he did not think it prudent to wear a cycle helmet, so I would unfortunately correlate that with an inability to appraise road dangers.
 
jpaul said:
I don't think that is supported by the shock expression on his face ?

However he did not think it prudent to wear a cycle helmet, so I would unfortunately correlate that with an inability to appraise road dangers.
Click to expand...

As is pointed out every time this comes up. There's no defined evidence that a helmet helps on the road. Off road, sure. But on road any benefit of having a helmet on is negated by drivers crashing into them more.
 
jpaul said:
re legitimacy of any cyclist being on the pavement - maybe this has been recinded
Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.

Final check to left is needed though, couple of regular situations -
you would be a stupid parent to let your young child run ahead of you on his scooter/bike on the way to school, but I often see it,
equally as a runner (w/fluo clothes) motorists often forget folks maybe approaching from the left quickly, and you can think you have looked a driver in the eye, but he has not seen you.
Click to expand...

I am personally of the opinion that the cyclist should not be on the pavement. However, let's assume that your quote above is the new dispensation not a comment per se. The word "considerately" looks deliberately open ended and open to interpretation. Two examples here are his inconsiderate speed on the pavement and the fact he is riding against the flow of traffic - he should have been on the other pavement and riding in the same direction of flow as the rest of the traffic on that side.

To the OP, you should be able to gauge with reasonable accuracy the speed of that onanist of a cyclist. Your video is recording at 60fps. Start from a point of reference when he is in view. Measure the distance he travels in x number of frames. Then it is simple maths.

For example: he covers 2 metres in 30 frames. That is 4 metres in a second.
240 metres a minute.
14400 metres an hour or 14.4km/h

Then, keep this as your secret weapon. Should it prove he was cycling without consideration and should it go to court, your lawyer can always ask whether cyclist thought he was speeding and present these findings to support your defence or claim.
 
This thread is comedy gold, people in here show a staggering amount of ignorance of road traffic law.
  • Pavement cycling:
    • Firstly, the legislation doesn't refer to pavements, and neither does it refer to cyclists. That's important because there are tracks and shared use pathswhere cycling is not illegal.
    • It's an offence to drive a carriage on "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers", essentially a footway next to the highway (different but equivalent legislation applies in Scotland).
    • The law also applies to children, but as those under ten are below the age of criminal responsibility they can't be prosecuted (watch out in Scotland however, where criminal responsibility starts at eight, though the Scottish Government has announced plans to increase this to twelve). Being too young to prosecute unfortunately didn't stop a policeman in Lincolnshire threatening to confiscate a four year-old's bike after he spotted her cycling along the pavement in 2015.
    • Fortunately, when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".
    • The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law and recommended that the matter be taken up with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). ACPO welcomed the renewed guidance, circulated it to all forces, and issued a statement referring to "discretion in taking a reasonable and proportionate approach, with safety being a guiding principle".
    • To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is clear guidance that the police are supposed to exercise discretion.
    • And finally on pavements, remember that on segregated cycle tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, so if you cycle into the pedestrian side to pass a pedestrian in the cycle lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There's an anomaly because cyclists have to ride on their side, but pedestrians are only advised to use theirs.
 
You can use the pavement edging as your point of reference. As he passes the wheelie bin, use the join line of the paving stone edge to measure the time in frames to cover that distance. Then measure the paving edging. Multiply by actual frames and divide by 60. This gives the m/s speed. Then as I said above, muliply to get his roadspeed.
 
Dr Who said:
This thread is comedy gold, people in here show a staggering amount of ignorance of road traffic law.
Click to expand...

Reads on.......

Dr Who said:
To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence
Click to expand...

So no ignorance of road traffic law at all then as everyone in this thread is saying it's an offense, and an offense it is. However the police choose to approach it doesn't change the fact that cycling on the pavement is an offence.
 
Dr Who said:
This thread is comedy gold, people in here show a staggering amount of ignorance of road traffic law.
  • Pavement cycling:
    • And finally on pavements, remember that on segregated cycle tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, so if you cycle into the pedestrian side to pass a pedestrian in the cycle lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There's an anomaly because cyclists have to ride on their side, but pedestrians are only advised to use theirs.
Click to expand...

Thats why as a cyclist I never use these shared use paths, its just easier not to bother as pedestrians tend to walk all over the place regardless, that and you are advised not to use them if your speed is generally greater than 18mph as it becomes a risk to pedestrians anyway due to the speed. Still it doesn't stop motorists moaning about cyclists not using cycle paths despite the problem is down to the motorists ignorance
 
Daily commuting cyclist here - cyclist was a complete **** HOWEVER expect to pay for your own damage.
I'll be very surprised he claims against you since he was a ****.
 
Have you submitted the recordings to the police? It would be interesting to see what they think against your insurer.
 
robj20 said:
Are you going to be claiming against the cyclist?
Click to expand...
I think it should be done, the police and insurers are involved and the cyclist went to hospital, definitely show the footage to the police, I thought they had a duty to review these things. Whilst there is the potential it could go 50/50 at least you would have done everything by the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom