Minor cycling bump - but who would be at fault?
dstev55
Posts: 742
Evening all,
I was out with a group of other riders tonight and myself and another one had a minor bump. I was at the front of a group of 5, we were in a built up town and a pedestrian crossing changed to red. I think we were doing 20-25 kmh but there was no way I was going to hit the line before it changed to red. So I hit the brakes whilst shouting "whoa" at the same time. It was hardly an emergency stop and I think 90% of other groups would have stopped. Anyway the guy behind me hit my back wheel as I slowly. Not sure how he didn't come off, but he didn't. There was very little damage to his bike (the end of the skewer snapped off - not the quick release side and a slight paint chip to one side of his fork). I can't see any damage to my bike but it was dark so I'll have a look tomorrow.
The guy didn't seem too chuffed with me, I apologised for possibly slowing a little too sharply but he didn't respond to my apology which I thought was a bit rude in all honesty. I was of the thought that yes I may have broke a bit hard but surely when riding behind another rider you should be prepared to move either side of the rider in front if they slow suddenly.
What are everyone else's thoughts? Obviously it is standard that if you get hit behind when driving a car it is the driver behinds fault 99% of the time but I'm not sure about cycling. It doesn't really matter as in the end there has been next to no harm done but I was just wondering what the etiquette is.
I was out with a group of other riders tonight and myself and another one had a minor bump. I was at the front of a group of 5, we were in a built up town and a pedestrian crossing changed to red. I think we were doing 20-25 kmh but there was no way I was going to hit the line before it changed to red. So I hit the brakes whilst shouting "whoa" at the same time. It was hardly an emergency stop and I think 90% of other groups would have stopped. Anyway the guy behind me hit my back wheel as I slowly. Not sure how he didn't come off, but he didn't. There was very little damage to his bike (the end of the skewer snapped off - not the quick release side and a slight paint chip to one side of his fork). I can't see any damage to my bike but it was dark so I'll have a look tomorrow.
The guy didn't seem too chuffed with me, I apologised for possibly slowing a little too sharply but he didn't respond to my apology which I thought was a bit rude in all honesty. I was of the thought that yes I may have broke a bit hard but surely when riding behind another rider you should be prepared to move either side of the rider in front if they slow suddenly.
What are everyone else's thoughts? Obviously it is standard that if you get hit behind when driving a car it is the driver behinds fault 99% of the time but I'm not sure about cycling. It doesn't really matter as in the end there has been next to no harm done but I was just wondering what the etiquette is.
0
Comments
-
These things are subject to the Rashomon effect - but as you describe the incident (and if the technical aspects of the other rider's view don't differ) then he is at fault.
You obeyed a traffic signal. That's what you're meant to do. It is his responsibility (whether descending at 50mph or going at walking pace) not to hit the rear of the bicycle to his front.
On a wider note, riding in a group is fraught with little risks and dangers. Although you weren't exactly motoring, you ought all to have been aware that there were traffic signals ahead.
The best route for a group ride has no traffic lights and only left-hand turns. That way, you never have to cross oncoming traffic.
But in short, if your account is accurate then he is at fault. Sleep well.0 -
Yes as you describe it it sounds like he was at fault - but no doubt he would describe it differently ! Ultimately though if you ride in a group you accept that these things might happen - I got taken out the other year by a guy that fell off on a nothing corner - I still suffer the after affects but I don't hold it against him - yes he was a sh*t rider but he didn't choose to be while I did choose to ride in a group with him.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
By the law he was following too closely to stop in time and is at fault. Cycling reality, however, is that in a pack riders often ride six inches apart to get the aero effect, and the only way to avo0id contact in that case would have been to call out well in advance of hitting your brakes. Stuff happens. Glad he hasn’t sued or something.
I will keep an eye out for an angry thread “Rider stopped short, caused me to wreck.”0 -
By the law he was following too closely to stop in time and is at fault. Cycling reality, however, is that in a pack riders often ride six inches apart to get the aero effect, and the only way to avo0id contact in that case would have been to call out well in advance of hitting your brakes. Stuff happens. Glad he hasn’t sued or something.
I will keep an eye out for an angry thread “Rider stopped short, caused me to wreck.”
Haha, probably. There's nor a lot to sue for, the damage is as minor as it could get. If I had called out well before I broke I wouldn't have stopped in time!0 -
Always a tricky one but as others have said, from your description i would say he was at fault. However, as lead rider you hold the responsibility of looking ahead and recognising possible dangers - junctions, traffic lights, pot holes etc etc, so i would say try to be a bit more observant when riding at the front in future and give warning calls to those riding behind you to try and avoid such incidents.
If he does try and pin the blame on you ask him why he couldn't stop in time yet the rider third in line managed to avoid bumping in to him (i'm assuming he did avoid him).0 -
Why did he not notice that the lights were changing and take action?
Why blame the guy at the front for stopping when a light changes to red and you're able to? Should we ignore the laws of the road in pursuit of a good Strava time?
He sounds like a knob head to me, especially his actions afterwards.0 -
Maybe he was riding in mph and didn't realise you were riding in kmph
If someone runs into the back of your car as a result of being too close/failing to stop etc they are at fault.This is no different IMO.
We all know the risks of group riding and i personally think he acted like a bit of a tw@ but this happens :roll:0 -
To echo others, riding in a group is tailgating.
The few times this has been taken to court, the courts have agreed.0 -
Before you group ride, do you agree what signals you will use for navigating around obstacles?
If you had agreed to use certain signals and instead just went woah then I think he could feel justifiably aggrieved but if you didnt then its up to each to use their own judgement imo.
A lot of group riding depends on good communication between riders. Any junctions or obstacles should always be passed down the group to make sure all are aware. Never assume everyone can see what you can0 -
Before you group ride, do you agree what signals you will use for navigating around obstacles?
If you had agreed to use certain signals and instead just went woah then I think he could feel justifiably aggrieved but if you didnt then its up to each to use their own judgement imo.
A lot of group riding depends on good communication between riders. Any junctions or obstacles should always be passed down the group to make sure all are aware. Never assume everyone can see what you can
This doesn't take away your responsibility to yourself and others surely.
Is everything the fault of they guy at the front? Head down, stuff the consequences and blame someone else when it goes tits up.0 -
A bit of both me thinks, weighted a bit more towards the following party being at fault.
They are ultimately responsible for paying attention to everything going on ahead.
If there was no shout of 'slowing' or 'stopping' or 'patting the imaginary dog' signal, I'd be inclined to be a bit miffed if I was following.
However if it was a sudden change to red that the approaching distance was borderline whether to stop or carry on, its just one of those things. But, its the lead riders responsibility to dictate a safe speed for the whole group when approaching hazards.
I bumped into the guy in front on the club run on Saturday morning, slow speed so nothing doing. I looked down for a split second, so eyes not forward, but there was no warning call from those in front of me.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other (Or maybe about 60:40)Edinburgh Revolution Curve
http://app.strava.com/athletes/19200480 -
Before you group ride, do you agree what signals you will use for navigating around obstacles?
If you had agreed to use certain signals and instead just went woah then I think he could feel justifiably aggrieved but if you didnt then its up to each to use their own judgement imo.
A lot of group riding depends on good communication between riders. Any junctions or obstacles should always be passed down the group to make sure all are aware. Never assume everyone can see what you can
This doesn't take away your responsibility to yourself and others surely.
Is everything the fault of they guy at the front? Head down, stuff the consequences and blame someone else when it goes tits up.
Not sure what you are disagreeing with. If you go out on a group and dont decide what actions on stopping etc are then as a GROUP you should know better. If you are prepared to sit on someones wheel and rely on them to just know when to stop them more fool you. There is no knowing the experience of the riders involved to fully understand the circumstances. I personally would keep my head up and use my own judgement regardless of who is in front. That way I can be alerted to something even if others dont see it. As i say. Communication is important to make sure others are alert to all possible obstacles0 -
Legally it may be all on him but I feel that he needs a bit of defence here. If you are on the front then, under cycling etiquette "rules", you bear responsibility for the group behind you. If you are coming up to a light on green then you need to be thinking earlier about it changing. Either freewheel for a bit and let the speed drift down naturally or accelerate to allow the group to spread out a bit or just give a warning that something is up.
You'll be aware that if you are properly tucked in behind someone then seeing things ahead can be very difficult so you just "randomly" slamming the brakes on - as you said you did - will wind people up. If it was a light that you could have safely Run on amber then more so.
At the end of the day it's about being predictable on the front. One of my mates came over to ride the RVV last year and struggled - not unreasonably - with the Belgian road layouts and attitudes to bikes. He nearly caused several crashes in the first 5 km becasue he was so unpredictable.
It doesnt sound like he is asking for money or anything (which would certainly be unreasonable) but I think you re getting unreasonably worked up over a cold shoulderWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
My take is that if you are in towns, when there is road furniture, lights, crossings etc. then you shouldn't really be drafting at all. By all means cycle in a group, but you have to be responsible as individuals.
Think of it this way, if the light was on amber for you but red for the middle of the group, would the lead rider be responsible for the later riders running the red light? Is a group of cyclists a single entity in that case?
Of course not.0 -
No it can't.ibbo68 wrote:
If someone runs into the back of your car as a result of being too close/failing to stop etc they are at fault.
Not necessarily. If the lead vehicle (which was rear ended) braked suddenly and unexpected then the blame can be pinned on them.
No matter how "sudden" or "unexpected" it is it is always the following cars fault because if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop! It's as simple as that and no matter what excuse the following driver has if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop.You could use this in any court in the land and the outcome would always be the same
"He braked suddenly and I ran in to him"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"It was unexpected"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was raining/wet!If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was dark/poor visibility"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
It is always the fault of the follow vehicle because......you get the picture 0 -
No it can't.ibbo68 wrote:
If someone runs into the back of your car as a result of being too close/failing to stop etc they are at fault.
Not necessarily. If the lead vehicle (which was rear ended) braked suddenly and unexpected then the blame can be pinned on them.
No matter how "sudden" or "unexpected" it is it is always the following cars fault because if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop! It's as simple as that and no matter what excuse the following driver has if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop.You could use this in any court in the land and the outcome would always be the same
"He braked suddenly and I ran in to him"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"It was unexpected"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was raining/wet!If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was dark/poor visibility"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
It is always the fault of the follow vehicle because......you get the picture
Nope, it's a common misconception.
99% off the time it is the vehicle which went in to the bank of the one in front who is deemed responsible, but, following the case of Ayers v. Singh, 1997, it is no longer guaranteed that the vehicle rear ended is not at fault.
In fact, I believe that since cameras have become ever present on car dash boards there have been numerous such accidents in which the rear ended car has been found responsible for causing the accident.0 -
I had to look Ayers up. It's not really all that useful in the UK, common law colony or not........
There are a few now. Most recently this one:
http://www.horwichfarrelly.co.uk/rear-end-shunt-a-change-of-judicial-direction-john-oneill-v-mr-ashley-monkman-nottingham-cc-14-august-2013/
They'll be exceptionally rare though and, in normal circumstances, the normal presumption will win out.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Legally it may be all on him but I feel that he needs a bit of defence here. If you are on the front then, under cycling etiquette "rules", you bear responsibility for the group behind you. If you are coming up to a light on green then you need to be thinking earlier about it changing. Either freewheel for a bit and let the speed drift down naturally or accelerate to allow the group to spread out a bit or just give a warning that something is up.
You'll be aware that if you are properly tucked in behind someone then seeing things ahead can be very difficult so you just "randomly" slamming the brakes on - as you said you did - will wind people up. If it was a light that you could have safely Run on amber then more so.
At the end of the day it's about being predictable on the front. One of my mates came over to ride the RVV last year and struggled - not unreasonably - with the Belgian road layouts and attitudes to bikes. He nearly caused several crashes in the first 5 km becasue he was so unpredictable.
It doesnt sound like he is asking for money or anything (which would certainly be unreasonable) but I think you re getting unreasonably worked up over a cold shoulder
I'm certainly not getting "worked up" as you put it, his lack of response is a side matter, I was just intrigued on what everyone's thoughts on it were. As I stated I'm my original post, there wasn't any way I would have hit the pedestrian crossing line before it went red, never mind the rest of the group.0 -
OK so one case out of 10000000s?
No it can't.ibbo68 wrote:
If someone runs into the back of your car as a result of being too close/failing to stop etc they are at fault.
Not necessarily. If the lead vehicle (which was rear ended) braked suddenly and unexpected then the blame can be pinned on them.
No matter how "sudden" or "unexpected" it is it is always the following cars fault because if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop! It's as simple as that and no matter what excuse the following driver has if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop.You could use this in any court in the land and the outcome would always be the same
"He braked suddenly and I ran in to him"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"It was unexpected"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was raining/wet!If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was dark/poor visibility"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
It is always the fault of the follow vehicle because......you get the picture
Nope, it's a common misconception.
99% off the time it is the vehicle which went in to the bank of the one in front who is deemed responsible, but, following the case of Ayers v. Singh, 1997, it is no longer guaranteed that the vehicle rear ended is not at fault.
In fact, I believe that since cameras have become ever present on car dash boards there have been numerous such accidents in which the rear ended car has been found responsible for causing the accident.
I will conceded then that in 99.99999% of cases it's the driver following who's at fault.
I would also say that the Judge or magistrate in question needs to look at the Law.If you hit someone in front no matter what causes them to stop suddenly you are driving too close.Simple.You are driving without due care and attention.
The judge in one of the links said that "there was no reasonable excuse for the driver to stop on a dual carriage way".It doesn't matter!If the vehicles behind were traveling at a safe distance they would not have hit the vehicle that stopped.Doesn't matter if they're doing 30,50 or 150mph.If they're traveling at a safe distance in accordance with the speed they're going there is no way on earth they can rear end the car in front.
That is a fact.0 -
OK so one case out of 10000000s?
No it can't.ibbo68 wrote:
If someone runs into the back of your car as a result of being too close/failing to stop etc they are at fault.
Not necessarily. If the lead vehicle (which was rear ended) braked suddenly and unexpected then the blame can be pinned on them.
No matter how "sudden" or "unexpected" it is it is always the following cars fault because if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop! It's as simple as that and no matter what excuse the following driver has if it/they were traveling at a safe distance they would always have time to stop.You could use this in any court in the land and the outcome would always be the same
"He braked suddenly and I ran in to him"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"It was unexpected"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was raining/wet!If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
"it was dark/poor visibility"If you were traveling at a safe distance you would always have time to stop
It is always the fault of the follow vehicle because......you get the picture
Nope, it's a common misconception.
99% off the time it is the vehicle which went in to the bank of the one in front who is deemed responsible, but, following the case of Ayers v. Singh, 1997, it is no longer guaranteed that the vehicle rear ended is not at fault.
In fact, I believe that since cameras have become ever present on car dash boards there have been numerous such accidents in which the rear ended car has been found responsible for causing the accident.
I will conceded then that in 99.99999% of cases it's the driver following who's at fault.
I would also say that the Judge or magistrate in question needs to look at the Law.If you hit someone in front no matter what causes them to stop suddenly you are driving too close.Simple.You are driving without due care and attention.
The judge in one of the links said that "there was no reasonable excuse for the driver to stop on a dual carriage way".It doesn't matter!If the vehicles behind were traveling at a safe distance they would not have hit the vehicle that stopped.Doesn't matter if they're doing 30,50 or 150mph.If they're traveling at a safe distance in accordance with the speed they're going there is no way on earth they can rear end the car in front.
That is a fact.
Don't get me wrong, a high % of accidents where a car is rear ended does come down to the car behind being too close or travelling too fast, my point is though that following that court ruling it can no longer be taken for granted that it is always is the car behind at fault.
I think one of the issues is how do you determine a safe distance? There is no possible set standard for determining a safe distance. There are so many variables that it is impossible to set a standard figure,which is possibly why more & more cases are being challenged.0 -
On motorways and fast dual carriageways its different. Sudden hard braking on such roads for no good reason is dangerous driving . In all other cases the guy behind is always at fault.
Back on topic - Dont cycle in groups if youre not willing to take some rough and tumble. The whole point of riding in a group is you stay close together.0 -
In a group I don't think you can outright blame one rider, but generally I'd expect the riders behind to not hit the riders in front.
However, I'd expect the rider on the front to ride in a way that gave the group the best possible chance. I would say always 'ease up' on the pedals before applying the brakes. Give a hand gesture or shout. Always use the maximum stopping distance available to you.
If you're on the front approaching green lights, back off to a speed where the group could safely stop should they change. Then once close enough that should they turn amber that it would not be safe to stop do not pull an emergency stop, carry on... some of the tail enders will probably have to stop, but it's much safer to re-group after than brake checking the group.
Basically, if you're on the front, keep to a speed where you could initiate any stop by coasting for 2-3 seconds before applying the brakes. If you have to go straight to brakes to stop in time, then you're going too fast. This will mean in areas with more hazards a bunch will have to keep to a lower speed to allow for a bit of coasting down time, than one might if they were on their own. If this is hassle, then maybe pick a different route for group rides.
If I ran in to the back of someone I'd apologize, however, if they were pushing the pace, then applied the brakes immediately on seeing an amber light and came up 2m short of the stop line... I might only apologise through gritted teeth (doesn't sound like this was the case in the OP though)!0 -
Fair points. I wasn't pushing the pace, we'd only just turned on to the road from having stopped at other traffic lights. We probably were accelerating though which wouldn't have helped. Having spoken to the other chaps on Sunday they all said it wasn't my fault, I was only following the highway code and he should have been paying attention and as they pointed out, how did they all manage to stop without hitting anyone else?In a group I don't think you can outright blame one rider, but generally I'd expect the riders behind to not hit the riders in front.
However, I'd expect the rider on the front to ride in a way that gave the group the best possible chance. I would say always 'ease up' on the pedals before applying the brakes. Give a hand gesture or shout. Always use the maximum stopping distance available to you.
If you're on the front approaching green lights, back off to a speed where the group could safely stop should they change. Then once close enough that should they turn amber that it would not be safe to stop do not pull an emergency stop, carry on... some of the tail enders will probably have to stop, but it's much safer to re-group after than brake checking the group.
Basically, if you're on the front, keep to a speed where you could initiate any stop by coasting for 2-3 seconds before applying the brakes. If you have to go straight to brakes to stop in time, then you're going too fast. This will mean in areas with more hazards a bunch will have to keep to a lower speed to allow for a bit of coasting down time, than one might if they were on their own. If this is hassle, then maybe pick a different route for group rides.
If I ran in to the back of someone I'd apologize, however, if they were pushing the pace, then applied the brakes immediately on seeing an amber light and came up 2m short of the stop line... I might only apologise through gritted teeth (doesn't sound like this was the case in the OP though)!0
