Accident
Comments
-
mattitheowl wrote:
"Sorry mate, I never saw you" seems like acknowledging a mistake to me.
But previously you said this...mattitheowl wrote:I'm sure he'll try and deny any liability (he tried at the roadside) but in all honesty I just don't think he saw me. His argument was "I was indicating" but he obviously didn't check his left side as I was riding just behind him for about 300 yards.left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:mattitheowl wrote:
"Sorry mate, I never saw you" seems like acknowledging a mistake to me.
But previously you said this...mattitheowl wrote:I'm sure he'll try and deny any liability (he tried at the roadside) but in all honesty I just don't think he saw me. His argument was "I was indicating" but he obviously didn't check his left side as I was riding just behind him for about 300 yards.
He said "What happened? Sorry mate I never saw you, I was indicating though" He kept repeating that he'd been indicating.
In fact the very first thing he said to me was (as he approached laughing), "I hope you haven't put a hole in your tights mate".0 -
1. Did he give you his name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the registration of the vehicle and details of insurers? If yes proceed to step 2. If no report the accident to the police.
2. Get a medical check to determine any injuries, take photos of all damage etc.
3. Clearly write down everything (keep a copy of your GPS file) you know exactly how fast you were travelling, you know exactly where the accident took place. Include everything he said etc.
4. since you have legal insurance - send the whole lot to them to sort or contact his insurers asking for settlement of what you think is reasonable for the damages caused, along the lines of you thought you'd give them a chance to settle quickly before you got your legal insurance involved. mark it without prejudice.
You'll be amazed at how many insurance companies will bite your hand off, not to involve 3rd party claim firms.0 -
mattitheowl wrote:In fact the very first thing he said to me was (as he approached laughing), "I hope you haven't put a hole in your tights mate".
Seriously. If I was lying on the ground having been collided with he'd have about a nanosecond to change that attitude or be getting a carbon fibre soled size 10 in the nuts. And a polite enquiry about whether he now had road grime on his trousers. All macho posturing aside you understand : :evil:0 -
I'd suggest that your main problem may be lack of independent witnesses.
In my recent accident (ended up in A+E), it came down to my statement against the driver, and the police wouldn't take the matter any further. I was unable to pursue a criminal prosecution, and the police also strongly suggested any claim against his insurance would have also been difficult. It came down to they had no evidence to act on and it was purely his word against mine.
Lesson learnt - always get witness details.0 -
wavefront wrote:I'd suggest that your main problem may be lack of independent witnesses.
In my recent accident (ended up in A+E), it came down to my statement against the driver, and the police wouldn't take the matter any further. I was unable to pursue a criminal prosecution, and the police also strongly suggested any claim against his insurance would have also been difficult. It came down to they had no evidence to act on and it was purely his word against mine.
Lesson learnt - always get witness details.
It's awful isn't it. I was laid on the deck in a bit of a state and the last thing you're thinking about is getting witness statements and the like.
I don't want to seek any kind of prosecution because I do think it was an honest mistake, but I do need my costs covering (new helmet etc.).0 -
I think you may be getting some undue stick on this thread. It sounds like a classic left hook. The guy overtook you then turned left across your path.
I hope you're on the mend.0 -
Even if the OP had slowed down when he saw the brakelights and indicator, the car driver should have seen him and shouldn't have turned across the bike lane until the bike had passed.
Surely the driver was at fault as he should have checked the bike lane was clear before turning across it.0 -
If you were riding at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, you should have been in the centre of the lane.0
-
Mr_Cellophane wrote:If you were riding at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, you should have been in the centre of the lane.
OK. Yes. Maybe he should have been. But regardless of whether he was in the centre of the lane, in the bike lane, on the right of the lane, or upside down on the roof of the Mersey Tunnel, the absolute spunktrumpet in the car who overtook him then turned across his path shouldn't have done.
Most people get a little more support on these boards when they post their accident stories.0 -
HebdenBiker wrote:Mr_Cellophane wrote:If you were riding at the same speed as the rest of the traffic, you should have been in the centre of the lane.
OK. Yes. Maybe he should have been. But regardless of whether he was in the centre of the lane, in the bike lane, on the right of the lane, or upside down on the roof of the Mersey Tunnel, the absolute spunktrumpet in the car who overtook him then turned across his path shouldn't have done.
Most people get a little more support on these boards when they post their accident stories.
Sorry, I must have missed the post where he said the car overtook him and turned left. Which post was that ?
I read it that he was too close to the vehicle in front of him.0 -
To the OP, will you change the way you ride as a result of your accident? I know after having a few tumbles in my first few years of riding in London I began riding much more defensively (especially on roads with lots of traffic lights as frankly, what's the point of racing?), and I haven't had an off in about 4 years now.
How will you respond to this incident the next time you're out riding?0 -
This is a most unfortunate incident, the like of which many of us have experienced over the years.
It sounds as though blame (fault) cannot easily be apportioned - and that there are lessons to be taken away by both parties.
In my youth I had several spills in which I was not a fault, suffered pain and/or cost and was not in a position to seek any payment. It happens. It is rum, but it happens. If I were the OP, I'd drop it. You have no broken bones and damage seems slight.
The OP is not in a position to ensure that the other party takes some lessons away from the incident, but can use it as a part of the learning curve for his own riding.
I don't use cycle lanes myself - and certainly wouldn't if travelling at almost traffic speed. But I do not condemn them - if you like them, use them. But do not imagine an invisible Armco barrier between you and other traffic. It isn't there.
Do be aware that 18-20mph in among motor vehicles is a speed that requires super-duper concentration, anticipation and reactions. It is not the same as bimbling along an empty country lane at 20mph. Or even 30mph. You are right in there, cycle lane or not.
It may take another couple of left-hook incidents and another few pounds in unforeseen costs, but you will learn to pick up on turnings ahead, indicators, the attitude (stance) of passing vehicles and other little hints that there is about to be a kinetic interface between their vector and yours.
The trick is to anticipate, predict, react and stay upright. Those of us who sound patronising (as I do) write this way because we've done what you did and felt the pain and got cross. You will adjust the way you ride. I do not suggest that the driver was without blame, but that is not (to my mind) the matter you should be addressing.
Keep riding, keep having fun and be more traffic.
0 -
I have complete sympathy with the OP having had a very close call like this myself. In my case the speeds were a lot slower as I was struggling up hill, but the car that overtook me did so about 10 feet from the road she turned into. I would have gone into the side of the car had I not stopped almost dead myself, due to my lack of speed, fortunately.
Saying that, in the OP's case, with a dedicated cycle lane in place, I still don't believe I would have moved into the centre of the lane had I been travelling at the same speed as the traffic, so would I have been able to stop in time? Probably not.
I can also see it fro Ugo's perspective too though. I think he is saying that a court of law MAY see it as the cyclist travelling too near to the car in front (even though we know that he was over taken by the car) and in the worst case scenario a good lawyer for the driver may convince the court that the cyclist was actually undertaking the car, who was clearly signalling! (I do not believe this for one second by the way!)
I fear a lack of witness for the OP may make his case very hard to prove. I hope I am wrong, and I still think you should report the accident to both the Police and British Cycling and see what they think.
Good luck.0 -
I think the problem for anyone who's essentially saying, "it wouldn't have happened if you /were riding more defensively/were more experienced/ were as good at riding in traffic as (I think) I am", is twofold.
1) You weren't there, so despite the OP'S best efforts at a description, without perfect knowledge of how things unfolded in real time, you're only really theorizing and making assumptions.
2) The next time you get knocked off your bike, you'll have to stand up, dust yourself off, and say with a smile "My fault mate, I wasn't riding-defensively/experienced/enough. I clearly need to hone my riding in traffic skills"
Accidents happen, anyone who thinks they're so experienced and skilled that they can avoid them completely, is probably heading for a very big one.0 -
Origami02 wrote:I think the problem for anyone who's essentially saying, "it wouldn't have happened if you /were riding more defensively/were more experienced/ were as good at riding in traffic as (I think) I am", is twofold.
1) You weren't there, so despite the OP'S best efforts at a description, without perfect knowledge of how things unfolded in real time, you're only really theorizing and making assumptions.
2) The next time you get knocked off your bike, you'll have to stand up, dust yourself off, and say with a smile "My fault mate, I wasn't riding-defensively/experienced/enough. I clearly need to hone my riding in traffic skills"
Accidents happen, anyone who thinks they're so experienced and skilled that they can avoid them completely, is probably heading for a very big one.
Absolutely. It is quite impossible to make an accurate judgement or assessment on the basis of a description in a forum.
I think most posters would have been aware of that. Nonetheless, it can be helpful to point out one or two things that might help. On the basis of the flow of descriptive narrative on the incident by the OP throughout this thread, I think one might reasonable guess that there are one or two valid tweaks he might make to his riding in traffic.
But you're right... we all crash and we all do silly things. I do loads, but I don't post online asking what to do about them.0 -
If you are in a dedicated cycle lane and there is a queue of slow moving cars on the road lanes, you are entitled to pass them in the cycle lane assuming it is clear - that cannot surely be argued as undertaking the cars!Pituophis wrote:I can also see it fro Ugo's perspective too though. I think he is saying that a court of law MAY see it as the cyclist travelling too near to the car in front (even though we know that he was over taken by the car) and in the worst case scenario a good lawyer for the driver may convince the court that the cyclist was actually undertaking the car
I don't go fast, especially in traffic, but on my commute there is a long downhill stretch of cycle/bus/taxi lane going into town. The lane is quite often clear of buses and taxis, and as downhill it's hard not to go down that stretch at over 20mph passing a slow moving queue of cars on my right. If a car suddenly decided to turn left in front of me having not noticed me in the cycle lane, I probably wouldn't be able to stop in time. Even if the car was indicating and I slowed down, I would hope he/she had seen me and allow me to pass before he/she turned across the cycle lane.0 -
Thanks for the advice folks.
I'm just a bit stumped on what I could change other than getting off and walking (and even that wouldn't stop this as I'd be on the pavement that someone could cross and hit me). This cycle lane goes on and off the pavement and I never go on the pavement sections as it's not in a very good state and I don't want to come into contact with pedestrians. I've had assorts of verbal (and one "punishment pass") when not in the lane from drivers. If I'd have been riding outside the lane at this point I would have caused all kinds of trouble as there's a lot of road furniture.
I know that the white line isn't impregnable but it surely has to be a safety line for a cyclist?
Look at it this way, if a car overtook another car, then turned left across it into a side road, who'd be to blame in the accident? It wouldn't be the car being overtaken.0 -
wavefront wrote:I'd suggest that your main problem may be lack of independent witnesses.
In my recent accident (ended up in A+E), it came down to my statement against the driver, and the police wouldn't take the matter any further. I was unable to pursue a criminal prosecution, and the police also strongly suggested any claim against his insurance would have also been difficult. It came down to they had no evidence to act on and it was purely his word against mine.
Lesson learnt - always get witness details.
never take the advice of a police officer - they often talk utter bollox despite being well meaning, occasionally.mattitheowl wrote:
Look at it this way, if a car overtook another car, then turned left across it into a side road, who'd be to blame in the accident? It wouldn't be the car being overtaken.
100% the overtaking driver, no matter what vehicle passing or being passed. However proving its that and not a cyclist passing a car about to turn left in to a side road (50/50) is going to be your challenge. Its worth a punt you have nothing other than some time to lose.0 -
You are entitled to, but given those circumstances I am usually happier overtaking on the right. I think drivers are more likely to look before turning right.ForumNewbie wrote:If you are in a dedicated cycle lane and there is a queue of slow moving cars on the road lanes, you are entitled to pass them in the cycle lane assuming it is clear - that cannot surely be argued as undertaking the cars!0
