My Bicycle damaged a car in an RTA- where does the liability lie?

Platinum Pete · 19 May 2008 at 16:41

After telling them that I do not accept liability or costs I've just had a phone call with the now very irate driver. Their version of the story obviously makes me appear very liable.. What a surprise. They have interpreted me looking behind me to see if it was safe to avoid them in the other lane of traffic, as me not paying attention to what was infront of me etc.. which is not the case.

As there were no witnesses I have decided to settle on 50% liability and cost (as quoted) and leave it at that. At the end of the day I would rather foot half of the quote than have the hastle of being taken to court, no matter how innocent I look or feel.

As I said they didn't seem like malicious types and I do feel partly responsible. Just a bummer that it costs me.

~>Dg<~ · 19 May 2008 at 16:42

my bro did a silly thing once as he was working in his van.he was in a rush and flung the door open and a bloke on a push bike went flying into it.the thing is the bloke was a copper of all the luck

but he was pretty ok about it in the end.just had to buy him a new front wheel.

Raymond Lin · 19 May 2008 at 16:43

That is a wise move, £55 is cheap to get rid of it, if anything for the hassle it will cause.

Platinum Pete · 19 May 2008 at 16:58

Raymond Lin said:
That is a wise move, £55 is cheap to get rid of it, if anything for the hassle it will cause.

Agreed> annoying but better than having a whole heap of hastle to deal with.

This is the 4th accident i have had this year on my bike- all the others were caused by cars not seeing me/ pulling out on me etc and all of them drove away without noticing that i had stacked it by avoiding them.- the first one where i cause damage to the car and not myself and I accept partial blame. sods law.

Live and learn. dont ride bikes in city centres

LoadsaMoney · 19 May 2008 at 17:12

Id have told them to *******, can't see how you can be held liable when they shouldn't have been in a bus/cycle lane tbh, if you had called the police they would have got done for it, your a fool im afraid for giving them some cash.

Fubsy · 19 May 2008 at 17:15

Platinum Pete said:
Live and learn. dont ride bikes in city centres

Just get a monster truck and crush them.

SpeedFreak · 19 May 2008 at 17:21

Platinum Pete said:
After telling them that I do not accept liability or costs I've just had a phone call with the now very irate driver. Their version of the story obviously makes me appear very liable.. What a surprise. They have interpreted me looking behind me to see if it was safe to avoid them in the other lane of traffic, as me not paying attention to what was infront of me etc.. which is not the case.

As there were no witnesses I have decided to settle on 50% liability and cost (as quoted) and leave it at that. At the end of the day I would rather foot half of the quote than have the hastle of being taken to court, no matter how innocent I look or feel.

As I said they didn't seem like malicious types and I do feel partly responsible. Just a bummer that it costs me.

I wouldn't have settled out of principle tbh. A couple of years ago a guy in a BMW M3 cut me up in a cycle lane and knocked me off my bike. My end caps scraped the side of his car as I came off. He stopped and went crazy at me, I explained to him that he was in the wrong not me and told him to **** off. I then jumped on my bike and cycled off, not much that he could do and tbh I did him a favour by leaving.

"andy" · 19 May 2008 at 17:29

~>Dg<~ said:
my bro did a silly thing once as he was working in his van.he was in a rush and flung the door open and a bloke on a push bike went flying into it.the thing is the bloke was a copper of all the luck but he was pretty ok about it in the end.just had to buy him a new front wheel.

someone did that to my mate in an old fiesta and he wrote it off by bending the door hinges and car body back when he hit it :eek

anyway in OPs case i wouldn't pay a thing. im awkward though

infact id of probably just rode off shouting and swearing about my injuries and damaged bike

Meridian · 19 May 2008 at 17:35

Dolph said:
If you hit a stationary vehicle in a car, you're held liable, I see no reason why cyclists shouldn't be held to the same standards.

Even when the car parks illegally in a cycle lane? Although that depends on timings: cycle lanes are usually 24 hour, but it might we worth checking. If the lane is always in force then it is entirely the driver's fault for breaking the law. I agree with those who report it to the police.

M

Dolph · 19 May 2008 at 17:52

Meridian said:
Even when the car parks illegally in a cycle lane? Although that depends on timings: cycle lanes are usually 24 hour, but it might we worth checking. If the lane is always in force then it is entirely the driver's fault for breaking the law. I agree with those who report it to the police.

M

Yep, just as if you hit a car parked on double yellow lines, you'll still be liable for it in the vast majority of cases. At best, it might contribute to a split settlement in court.

Someone else breaching the highway code does not divest you of all responsibility if you hit them.

Cambofrog · 19 May 2008 at 17:56

TBH, I would go for the 50% split at the moment. If there are no witnesses and you went in to the back of him, it is your word against his.

You know you were in the right, but with the lack of a witness, they generally assume you were in the wrong if you run in to the back of someone.

It may be tempting to fight the case on "principle", but if you can't afford that, I would be tempted to settle.

The world aint fair, we all know that

sunama · 19 May 2008 at 18:19

Dolph said:
If you hit a stationary vehicle in a car, you're held liable, I see no reason why cyclists shouldn't be held to the same standards.

From what I understand, the whole incident happened very quickly. He moved his cycle into the bus lane, the car overtook him and stopped in the bus lane. He then had to react very quickly.

Now, if anyone who has ever ridden a bike knows, cycle brakes are not very strong and if you hit the brakes, generally what tends to happen is your tyres lock up and you skid forward. Your stopping power isn't anywhere near as good as a car's.

This is why if a car hits another car from behind, the car behind is usually liable. However, if a cycle hits another car from behind, the cycle is not automatically held responsible. I know that car owners wont like to hear this, but cyclists can get away with A LOT.

Wicksta · 19 May 2008 at 18:24

JBuk said:
this happened to my sisters friend, some boy racers were mucking about and were all over the road then they slammed the brakes on in front of her and she didnt have to time to react

she phoned the police and not only were the boy racers liable but i believe they were also charged with dangerous driving

How did she prove it out of interest, any witnesses? Surely everyone could say that they just slammed the brakes on in front of them if they rear end someone.

Richdog · 19 May 2008 at 18:26

I can't believe you settled on 50%... that's crazy... you just folded. You shouldn't have had to pay a penny.

sunama · 19 May 2008 at 18:26

Your case is similar to this one:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/mem/LegalandInsurance/20070810_richard_allen.asp

The difference is that the car involved in your case brought itself to a halt, giving you a little more time to react. However, your argument should be that you didnt have enough time to respond. You hit the brakes, but upon realising that you were going to be unable to stop, you decided to steer your bicycle around the car, however, were unable to do and ended up slamming into the car. If I could've stopped, I would've. I would never willingly or knowingly slam into a car, potentially putting your own life at risk.

I would go with that defence and stipulate that you did everything you could do avoid the accident. Also explain that bicycle brakes simply arent capable of stopping at the same rate as a car. A lot of people dont quite understand this, so you might need to explain this, should you decide to legally defend against this.

Also, as there are no witnesses, I know it sounds bad, but you can quite literally make any story up that you choose to. Similarly, the car-owner can do the same, so you need to be careful here.

sunama · 19 May 2008 at 18:28

Richdog said:
I can't believe you settled on 50%... that's crazy... you just folded. You shouldn't have had to pay a penny.

Gotta agree with that. They should not have parked so abruptly in a bus lane, knowing that they were being followed a by a cyclist whose brakes are not capable of stopping in the same way as a car.

They were in the wrong and stopped in a bus lane with undue care.

Platinum Pete · 19 May 2008 at 18:29

Cambofrog said:
TBH, I would go for the 50% split at the moment. If there are no witnesses and you went in to the back of him, it is your word against his.

You know you were in the right, but with the lack of a witness, they generally assume you where in the wrong if you run in to the back of someone.

It may be tempting to fight the case on "princliple", but if you can't afford that, I would be tempted to settle.

The world aint fair, we all know that

Thats exactly how I feel and what I have decided to do. as you say my word against theirs and there is 2 of them.

Just to clear things up. It is legal to load unload in bus lanes according to the highway code. it only becomes an offence when they obstruct cyclists, busses etc.

To those of you who say that you would have gone mental/ cycled off into the sunset. etc. Well if thats your way of dealing with the shock of a painful traffic accident, its not controlled or particually clever. Isnt running away from the scene of an accident a criminal offence anyway?

I'm not a fool for paying 50% I did cost benefit of the hastle involved in going to court/ getting the police/ solicitors involved and for £55 I'd prefer to let it lie.

Pete

JBuk · 19 May 2008 at 18:29

Wicksta said:
How did she prove it out of interest, any witnesses? Surely everyone could say that they just slammed the brakes on in front of them if they rear end someone.

I think they spoke to a nearby pedestrian to confirm what happened , not sure of all the in and outs really

Dolph · 19 May 2008 at 18:43

sunama said:
From what I understand, the whole incident happened very quickly. He moved his cycle into the bus lane, the car overtook him and stopped in the bus lane. He then had to react very quickly.

That's the OP's version, I'd imagine (as the OP has stated) that the car driver has a different version)

Now, if anyone who has ever ridden a bike knows, cycle brakes are not very strong and if you hit the brakes, generally what tends to happen is your tyres lock up and you skid forward. Your stopping power isn't anywhere near as good as a car's.

That's not the car driver's fault though. That's like claiming other drivers should have to make allowances for cars with poor stopping distances, instead of the driver of the poor stopping car.

This is why if a car hits another car from behind, the car behind is usually liable. However, if a cycle hits another car from behind, the cycle is not automatically held responsible. I know that car owners wont like to hear this, but cyclists can get away with A LOT.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. Cyclists do get away with a lot, far more than they should. They should be treated and held liable like any other road user, obey the laws of the road like any other road user, and be insured like any other road user.

Unfortunately, we all know that's not the case.

Richdog · 19 May 2008 at 18:48

Dolph said:
That's not the car driver's fault though. That's like claiming other drivers should have to make allowances for cars with poor stopping distances, instead of the driver of the poor stopping car.

Pulling in front of a cyclist in a bush lane and stopping dead? Definately a cars fault, and he should have known a cyclist was behind him, thus knew the OP wouldn't have been able to stop dead on a sixpence.