Mishap with cyclist

Nasher said:
If you don't touch him and he falls off on his own it's just some guy falling off a bike.
Click to expand...

Interesting defence.

Threaten a collision with bad driving and claim innocence to any consequences?

That's pretty ****** up, a cyclist has nothing like the safety of a car driver and is a lot more obliged for personal safety to overreact to threat of a collision with a motor vehicle.
 
Semple said:
There was a guy on here who posted a much more minor accident with a cyclist - cyclist on pavement and barely doing any speed. Eventually the cyclist came back to put in a big compo claim with his insurance and won.

So I'd definitely log it with your insurance incase he decides to make a claim.

Edit: your story doesn't quite add up, if the cyclist was able to get to the roundabout that quick to be clipped by the front of your car would suggest that he was much closer to the roundabout than you realised.
Click to expand...

It was me, and that thread is here: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/threads/accident-with-cyclist-seeking-advice.18796567/
 
yes his testament is falling apart under the spanish inquisition
- insurance companies must be investing in voice/text analysis AI software to give a verdict ?

SDK^ said:
It's a growing trend - priority drivers will hit the side or back of a car on a roundabout because they 'had priority'. Despite them not being in line of sight when the driver pulled out. YouTube dashcam videos are full of them.
Click to expand...
their premium is going to go up though ? albeit some might use it as a pretext to get prior bodywork dings fixed. (pcp'ers nearing handback)
 
Usher said:
I have mentioned his back wheel got a bit of damaged but that could have occurred when he fell off, I've now got doubts that I actually touched him at all, there's not the slightest mark, scratch or anything on my car, he travelled on for about 7 Mtrs before he fell off.
Click to expand...

How can you now think that you never hit him when you said you did before?

Just because there is no damage means nothing.

You rear ended a bike. I wouldn't expect any damage either. Not unless your car is made of paper mache. I've seen car Vs car crashes where there's no damage to one car and the other is crumpled.

Your talking a thin rubber tire attached to a 10-20kg frame Vs a 1500kg car.

Here's what happened.

You never saw the cyclist on the roundabout. You drove out into their right of way and clipped the rear of his bike.

A witness saw this and testified to the fact. So did the cyclist and so did your own wife. It's 3 Vs 1 and one of them is your own wife.

For some reason though you think this still isn't your fault and now you don't even think you hit him at all.

Next it will be the cyclist was cycling backwards around the roundabout so they could claim on your insurance by saying you rear ended them.
 
Hotwired said:
Interesting defence.

Threaten a collision with bad driving and claim innocence to any consequences?

That's pretty ****** up, a cyclist has nothing like the safety of a car driver and is a lot more obliged for personal safety to overreact to threat of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

The risks of riding a cycle on the road. There are armoured boxes going by at 60mph, there is a chance someone might not see you. If you are not ok with that don't do it. If you swerve and fall off it's your own fault, there is no requirement for the driver to stop as it isn't a "crash".
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
If you swerve and fall off it's your own fault, there is no requirement for the driver to stop as it isn't a "crash".
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the courts would disagree with you:

there have been cases where the court has held that an accident has occurred even where there was no physical contact between the vehicles involved. In Currie[7] it was held that the approach taken in the Scottish case of Bremner v Westwater[8] should be adopted as part of English law. In Bremner, the defendant was overtaking another vehicle on a blind corner. A police car was rounding the corner in the opposite direction, and was forced onto the verge in order to avoid a head-on collision. It was held that, even though there was no physical contact between the defendant’s car and the police car, the circumstances of this case were sufficient to fairly describe what happened as an “accident” for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.

Edit - citing source:

https://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/what-is-an-accident-for-the-purposes-of-the-road-traffic-acts/

I'll go with what a firm of barristers and case law says...
 
Last edited:
Scuzi said:
Priority warriors really are the scourge of the roads.
Click to expand...

To be honest I'm a daily cyclist and I'm getting the 'Priority warrior' vibe.
Sounds like Mr Lycra has entered the roundabout saying 'It's my priority' and failed.
I learned quite a few years ago with something similar that when cycling I can't play the game 'It's my priority' because I'll come off worse.
 
HoneyBadger said:
@Usher Do you have a dashcam?
Click to expand...

This is one of the reason I definitely have a dashcam. Not just because I've encountered some bad cyclists but also because of the behaviour of other drivers around cyclists - which sometimes causes an incident I might get caught up in through no fault of my own.

Sadly I had something similar almost happen to me on my driving test - fortunately I was able to move over just enough to avoid the cyclist who was 100% at fault - but it nearly cost me the test as I gathered a minor, which he could have rightly put down as a major, because of the manner in which I moved over without fully checking it was safe to do so but otherwise I'd have hit the cyclist (or they'd have hit me).
 
Nasher said:
The risks of riding a cycle on the road. There are armoured boxes going by at 60mph, there is a chance someone might not see you. If you are not ok with that don't do it. If you swerve and fall off it's your own fault, there is no requirement for the driver to stop as it isn't a "crash".
Click to expand...

We're not talking cyclists accepting normal risk. This is about threatening a collision with a cyclist using a motor vehicle out of incompetence or malice then claiming innocence about any consequences because you "didn't touch them".

@resurgam actually linked case law that your actions forcing an accident still count as a road traffic accident even if you don't touch, very clear on that.
 
arknor said:
or misjudged the cyclists speed as many people do
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that the number one excuse when I've been involved in close incidents is that they didn't realise I was going that fast.
A motorist sees a cyclist and thinks "5mph" and then just continue to do what they were doing.
 
Rroff said:
This is one of the reason I definitely have a dashcam. Not just because I've encountered some bad cyclists but also because of the behaviour of other drivers around cyclists - which sometimes causes an incident I might get caught up in through no fault of my own.

Sadly I had something similar almost happen to me on my driving test - fortunately I was able to move over just enough to avoid the cyclist who was 100% at fault - but it nearly cost me the test as I gathered a minor, which he could have rightly put down as a major, because of the manner in which I moved over without fully checking it was safe to do so but otherwise I'd have hit the cyclist (or they'd have hit me).
Click to expand...
Aren't you driving a car with bad brakes at the moment?
 
I don't even know why this thread exists - report to insurance, let them deal with it, provide factual statement when asked to by your insurance company.

This is why we have insurance - to cover accidents like this. Don't sweat it.
 
amigafan2003 said:
I don't even know why this thread exists - report to insurance, let them deal with it, provide factual statement when asked to by your insurance company.

This is why we have insurance - to cover accidents like this. Don't sweat it.
Click to expand...

OP was presumably hoping for some sympathy and advice on how to evade responsibility, whilst seemingly being in denial about the reality of what happened and their own culpability in causing the accident. In the first post they stated:

"my wife saw him and shouted but too late."

"He claimed it was my fault as he saw me pull out without looking and I should give way to vehicles from the right."

"lady in a car across the road said it was clearly my fault as I had knocked him off the bike"

Sounds as though he should let his insurance take it on the chin and be thankful that the cyclist wasn't seriously injured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom