/ Cyclist, small bump. Am I being unreasonable here?
today I nearly knocked a cyclist down. I was approaching a crossroads, the lights had just changed to green so I drove through (going straight across), probably about 15mph in a 30 zone.
A cyclist on a road bike came out of nowhere going from left to right so I slammed the anchors on and veered left, probably a reaction knowing they were heading the other way. Upshot is, I smacked into one of those small concrete reservation things causing damage to my alloy wheel which will need replacing along with the tyre and of course balancing etc.
Anyway, I was more worried about the cyclist. I drove the car off the junction onto the kerb and went to see the cyclist. She was in a wee bit of shock so I sat her in the back of our Bongo and made her a brew.
She was very apologetic STATING that it was all her fault as she had her ipod on and wasn't paying attention. Not to worry I said, alls well that ends well. Someone had called the police who arrived, checked the junction, took statements, pics etc and I had to get our Bongo recovered to a garage. Her hubby arrived, bike onto their car, more apologies and thanks for being understanding. I then said that I'd contact her when I knew what the cost to fix the damage was......
At this point, she asked me why she needed to know, I said because it is your fault and shouldn't you pay for it? I then had a 5 minute ear bashing from her telling me in no uncertain terms it was just one of those things, that is why you have insurance and she wouldn't pay for it.
I then politely told her there was no way I was using my insurance to pay for something that wasn't my fault, why should I raise my premium and in no uncertain terms, was I going to pay out of my own pocket.
Anyway, I wasn't going to have it out with her so I informed her I would be in touch at some point again to discuss the matter. I went home and here I am now.
Given that without my promt action, she would have been hit by a fairly heavy Mazda Bongo no doubt resulting in a trip to hospital. Now the fact she has admitted to both me and the police that she was to blame, am I being unreasonable in asking she pays for the repairs?
Also, I presumed that the police would have done more when they arrived and I am presuming that she must have broken the law by causing an accident?
Anyway, I reckon I'll be ringing the local plod tomorrow and ask for their advice and see what they say. What do you all reckon? Surely you would all do the same in my case?
I think you've been more than reasonable to this point. Don't know the legalities of it all, but surely if she's admitted liability then that's all there is to it? Doubt you could force her to pay without small claims court action, but based on her admission, especially to the police then surely you'd win?
Am I being retarded or are you saying this cyclist went straight through a red light because she wasn't paying attention?
As a cyclist myself - too right you should. If it was me I'd absolutely offer to pay. Her fault, your car was damaged due to the fact you were paying attention and looked after her safety.
The only slight reservation I'd have is your car has a very, very silly name, but that probably shouldn't preclude her from paying up.
I suspect as nobody was injured the police line would likely be "not enough evidence to prosecute" (that's what it's been in the past when I've been knocked off my bike by a passing motorist) so you'd need to pay for the repairs yourself and take out a civil action to try to recover the money.
I'd assume a police statement from the lady in question admitting fault would make for a fairly cut and dried case, so informing her that you're going to raise an action may be enough to make her pay up and save the hassle.
(I have no legal qualifications whatsoever though so I could be talking nonsense... common sense doesn't always seem to apply where the law is concerned)
The only issue I could see is, did you actually hit the cyclist? From your post I suspect not, which MIGHT raise an issue of whether she is at fault. Yeah, you had to swerve to miss her, but it was you the hit the bollard.
Being the cause of an accident and actually being involved in an accident are two different matters, so from Insurance side of things I suspect you would have a major fight on your hands.
That aside, yes you darn well should chase her, why should you pay for her stupidity? Cyclists have a duty to follow road laws like car drivers, and should be held responsible if they cause an accident.
May well be worth speaking to a solicitor on this one, if you have a friendly one tucked away somewhere?
Pursue her for the cost of repairs. Clearly her liability. She might be covered by her household insurance for such a third party claim, but if not, it's tough but still her problem. This is a prime example of why I think all cyclists should, by law, carry third party insurance.
You had better notify your insurers though, in case you get nowhere with her. If you are forced to go down that route, she should, at the very least re-imburse you for your excess and any loss of NCD.
> This is a prime example of why I think all cyclists should, by law, carry third party insurance.
Bit unfair on a 10 year old kid who's parents don't want to pay isn't it?
What about pedestrians - they often step out into the road and cause accidents - should we have to take out insurance to leave the house in a built up area?
10 year old kid causes an accident which leaves someone paralyzed for life - seems a bit unfair on the victim too....
If everybody carried some form of third party insurance eg household, or whatever it would be fairer for the victims.
Goodness knows how it could be organised though...Compulsory third party household insurance to include everyone living at an address might be a way forward, this to include using bikes, pedestrian, dogs etc
Why are you bothering with all this hassle... it will definitely involve a solicitor and court fees of some sort as well as months of waiting and stress - why not just pay the £200 or whatever it is to replace the alloy and have the tracking done?? Your going to have to pay it up front anyway whether you go through the courts or not!
Very well done for avoiding her. Better a scraped wheel than anything worse.
The earbashing could have been the shock talking, so yes, ask the cops what she said & request CCTV (not sure where from, but Mark Thomas did it once).
I think the only sensible way would be an extension of the existing criminal injuries compensation authority, paid for out of our taxes rather than compelling people to take out their own insurance policies (and forcing holiday makers, business travellers, etc. to do so).
Of course, when I say sensible, people would abuse the hell out of it whatever scheme you came up with. Insurance fraud is a full time business as it is, without adding the luxury of knowing everyone you pass in the street is covered by third party property insurance.
Devils Advocate Alert,
I do beleive, Green means proceed when clear, probably some link on the web somewhere, sooo, maybe just maybe you should have been looking for cyclists coming across late.
She went through a red, I was looking because I didn't hit her :0)
Sue her ass off then, too many jump red IMHO :)
If you do claim on your insurance and give them the details they might try and recover from her anyway.
All cyclists using public highways should have to have a reg number on their bikes and third party insurance. Only today I sat at some red lights and watched four cyclists go round me and through the lights, still on red.
Could be wrong but I think my household insurance covers me for incidents such as this. If I'm involved in an accident while on the bike I'm covered for any damage I cause or cause to myself. I think! I'd need to check.
Ignoring for a moment the knee jerk reactions / entrenched views of the pro and anti cycling lobbies....
IMO yes, she should cough up. It's not like it's going to be a bill for £3k - which I don't think would be hard to run up smacking a brand new car into something solid.
She ran a red light, by avoiding her you damaged your car.
I assume those saying that it's tough, you need to claim wouldn't bother getting insurance details if the same thing hsappened to them but it was a car driver and not a cyclist.
Just because she's on a bike doesn't make her less responsible. Any more than car drivers need to be less attentive because they are, comparatively speaking, in a tank.
Including my daughter when she cycles to school? I don't think so.
I cycle. I'm in CTC. I have £3M 3rd party cover for this stuff.
She was wrong. You are right. Get her details off the police. Claim.
OR I might be wrong.
It's an odd one that - not sure how headphones would stop you from noticing a red light! I'm normally listening to podcasts on my bike, but putting ear buds in my ears rather than in my eyes means if I ride through a red light its my own stupid choice/fault!
> Bit unfair on a 10 year old kid who's parents don't want to pay isn't it?
> What about pedestrians - they often step out into the road and cause accidents - should we have to take out insurance to leave the house in a built up area?
Indeed, one reason to have household insurance. A couple of months ago I was knocked off my motorbike by a pedestrian. In theory I could have pursued her for costs - in practice, my costs were only £150 so it wasn't worthwhile.
You don't get a warning from the police for driving with undue care if you're listening to your car stereo, so why on earth should you get warned for riding with undue care for listening to a personal stereo?
I generally don't listen to music when I'm riding, but I often have the headphones in to listen to the sat nav app on my phone if I'm heading to a part of town I don't know... does that make me irresponsible?
> Why are you bothering with all this hassle... it will definitely involve a solicitor and court fees of some sort as well as months of waiting and stress - why not just pay the £200 or whatever it is to replace the alloy and have the tracking done?? Your going to have to pay it up front anyway whether you go through the courts or not!
Agreed. It all depends upon the value of damages. Quite frankly, it's unlikely you will get a solicitor to represent you for such small amounts - certainly not on a no-win no-fee basis.
Secondly, I can imagine blame will get apportioned. So even if you win a civil case you could only get back 75% of costs less any fees.
Basically, for £200 I wouldn't bother.
> Indeed, one reason to have household insurance. A couple of months ago I was knocked off my motorbike by a pedestrian. In theory I could have pursued her for costs - in practice, my costs were only £150 so it wasn't worthwhile.
The other day a pigeon crapped on my coat. In theory I could have pursued it for costs....
I think actually it's one of those things that if you choose to be a motorcyclist you take the risks.
I don't understand that attitude at all. If my costs had been worse - for example I had been put in a wheelchair because of It - you can bet I would have pursued.
Fact is, I was biking safely and she was jaywalking with an iPhone playing, and not looking where she was walking on a busy A-road.
Like the OP, she also admitted fault at the time.
Hmm last weekend I was at work (paramedic) and went to a cyclist who had been clipped by a car coming across a dual carriageway roundabout. Cyclist was not wearing a helmet, didn't have any high-vis clothing (this was about 11pm), and had headphones on with music playing. Car driver had left scene.
View of the police was that given no/minimal damage to bike, it was probably a wing mirror clip and the driver hadn't even been able to notice. Much bollocking of the cyclist then ensued, and the gist of it was that if both parties were on scene and injured, the cyclist could have faced charges for lack of attention and lack of appropriate visibility.
> the cyclist could have faced charges for lack of attention and lack of appropriate visibility.
Did they say what charges they would have been? A lack of lights is against the law, but there's nothing in law about wearing day-glo tabards is there? And I'm not sure what the law says about headphones (not that I ever wear them personally, but I can't think what the law says).
> You don't get a warning from the police for driving with undue care if you're listening to your car stereo, so why on earth should you get warned for riding with undue care for listening to a personal stereo?
How can you hear what's behind you if you're cycling with earphones in?
> How can you hear what's behind you if you're cycling with earphones in?
Are deaf people not allowed to cycle?
I cycle a lot, and I wouldn't be in favour of registrations or mandatory insurance or mandatory helmets or any of that nonsense. I am, however, insured when I ride my bikes, and generally wear a helmet, but that is voluntarily.
I would say give her a call, explain the situation, point out that she wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court (or if you'd not swerved!), particularly as she's admitted fault to the police. This doesn't sound like a squeeze on the road, where it's a grey area or matter of opinion, if she jumped the light, then tough. If it's a couple of hundred quid, then I would ask her straight out if she wants to just give you the cash and forget it, go through her insurance, or have you pursue her for it. I don't think you need to do a number on her and get your whole car resprayed or some such, but a sensibly priced repair seems reasonable. Maybe in future, she'll decide to insure herself (it's not like cycling insurance is expensive) If she was in a car, this wouldn't even be a question - if she's not got insurance, then essentially she's taking the risk of such things upon herself.
I think in her situation, I'd be so embarrassed at doing someone's car in due too my stupidity that I'd say sorry and pay up. I mean she's done something wrong here, it's not like she got a puncture and therefore skidded into you or something.
Good luck with it!
> How can you hear what's behind you if you're cycling with earphones in?
err... by listening?
just because you have earphones in doesn't mean you have to be listening to music at full volume. As I said, I use them quite often to listen to the sat nav - this makes absolutely no difference to my awareness of who's behind me.
Besides, if you're going to make it illegal to cycle without being able to hear who's behind you, not only will you have to make it illegal to cycle whilst deaf, you'll need to ban electric cars from the road.
No, sadly they didn't say. It was just implied from what they were saying. Her lights weren't great, and she was on a roundabout that connected a dual carriageway to a motorway, so you'd expect a slightly higher level of care, attention and visibility!
Hopefully you don't need to coz you're looking in the mirrors
Did she definitely go through a red or was she just slow and you quick?
I think she ought to pay for the fix, it would be the right thing to do if things were as you describe.
She later denied it, got a neighbour to claim she had seen me speeding down the road at 50mph (not too sure how she came to this figure, perhaps she had a speed gun set up?) Renault garage agreed that while it is very hard to be specific with crashes as the points of impact vary, but it was very unlikely I was going over 30mph as my airbag didn't deploy.
Police dropped the case, my insurance (fully comp) paid me within 3 days but then had no interest in persuing the case. Approx 9 months later, as much out of guilt for the people who's cars had been damaged (both with 3rd party only insurance) who had not been reimbursed, as much as out of frustration I dropped the case. It seemed that although my insurance included legal aid that didn't actually mean they would fight for me but rather the good of the insurance company.
Massively impressed with their pay up though. Accident Sunday eve, called to report Monday, assessor came Tuesday agreed a write off and the value, and check on the door mat Wednesday morning.
I suppose if people want to listen to things when cycling that's their business, same for riding if deaf. But I reckon if I was deaf I'd feel quite nervous about cycling in traffic.
As for electric cars, surely their tyres still make the same amount of noise as a petrol car?
Of course they do - which is not very much. Perhaps enough to be heard if you're riding slowly on a quiet country lane with a tail wind but not enough to be heard when you're doing 20+mph on a windy day, let alone if you're tailing a moped in the city and there's a bus approaching in the opposite direction.
You're not being unreasonable at all, and it would be perfectly reasonable to go to the small claims court.
But - are you intending to tell your insurers about the accident?
Well, car tyres have always struck me as being surprisingly noisy, but maybe it's just hard to tell the tyre noise apart from the engine noise.
Anyway, I suppose I was just trying to make the point that it seems a good idea for cyclists to maximise their awareness of other traffic, since they're so much more vulnerable, and thus to minimise the risk of what the OP describes.
I'd certainly agree with that - just not the suggestion that we should be *required* to or face censure by the plod.
> Besides, if you're going to make it illegal to cycle without being able to hear who's behind you, not only will you have to make it illegal to cycle whilst deaf, you'll need to ban electric cars from the road.
Or bikes that go faster than other bikes, come to that.
If you're not aware of what's behind you when you're on a bike then you might want to have a word with yourself, but assuming that everything that might be coming up on you goes "vroom vroom vroom" isn't much better...
With my ears. Shocking I know. On the bike with my music on quietly and the occasional spoken GPS stats I can still hear a lot more of what's going on around me than I can driving a car with the stereo off. I also always behind me before moving out etc as if I relied on hearing things I'd get dead one of these days.
The anti-music brigade get my goat almost as much as the pro-helmet brigade.
Practically all home contents insurance does include third party liability, and cycling is generally not excluded.
The Swiss recently abolished their mandatory third party cycle insurance scheme on this basis.
Utter b*llocks. Compromising your senses, even by a little bit, in a traffic environment is plain stupid. I fear your self righteous attitude will be your downfall.
Travel insurance almost always includes it as well.
I thought it did, thanks for confirming it.
Sounds like a clueless copper. Lights are mandatory, and I am sick of seeing cyclists without them at night, but hi vis is not, and headphones have nothing to do with whether you get seen or not.
Hi vis may be sensible, but it is the law that matters in terms of what police should be doing, not what their opinion is. If they feel the law should change, they can petition for it, same as anyone else.
> You don't get a warning from the police for driving with undue care if you're listening to your car stereo, so why on earth should you get warned for riding with undue care for listening to a personal stereo?
> I generally don't listen to music when I'm riding, but I often have the headphones in to listen to the sat nav app on my phone if I'm heading to a part of town I don't know... does that make me irresponsible?
Well there is a marked difference in listening to the car radio (which doesn't cut off all the other important sounds around you) and listening to your iphone with the headphones (which does cut off all the other important sounds around you)
But is suspect you knew that.
I've been down to the police station and the chap there was on my side and fully agrees that I should have the damage paid for by the cyclist.
He also said, she has broken the law by running a red light and causing an accident. What I was unaware of was they told her yesterday that they will be in contact with her once they have reviewed the CCTV and she may face prosecution for causing an accident "without due care and attention"
I'll contact her today and see what she says about it all. I disagree with people saying it's only 200 quid, pay it yourself. If it was a car or a bike, then they would have to fork out the money via their insurance so why should a cyclist get away with it and me be out of pocket?
I'm not anti cyclist and I'm sure this has happened many a time, enough to warrant a change in the law so cyclists should have some sort of insurance and be held responsible for their actions.
Riding without due care would be the offence (if such an offence even exists). Riding with undue care would mean riding with an unnecessary amount of care!
Has she admitted to running a red light? If she hasn't and the CCTV confirms she hasn't, be prepared for a possible back lash from an angry cyclist who has been knocked off thier bike and who has now had the seeds of an insurance claim planted inside thier head by your good self.
This could be something as simple as a cyclist has gone through the green, just, cycling slowly and then a car has gone through its green, just, already travelling at a speed much faster than the cyclist (and other cars in a parallel lane, if more than one lane).
If she has admitted to something but not signed, she could claim it was all said due to the stress of her near death experience.
Take it a step further for the local press, 4x4 driver hits female cyclist.
Not getting at you mate but just putting a different slant on it because if these things go to the solicitors or court, it's exactly what happens.
Hope you get sorted.
She should think herself lucky that you aren't the sort of person who's suddenly overcome with crippling whiplash and feels they have to take their trouble to the daily star or a NWNF claims "expert".
> Including my daughter when she cycles to school? I don't think so.
Will you be claiming that she shouldn't need motor insurance to drive to college in a few years time?
if you think about it for a while you might be able to spot the difference.
> Well there is a marked difference in listening to the car radio (which doesn't cut off all the other important sounds around you) and listening to your iphone with the headphones (which does cut off all the other important sounds around you)
> But is suspect you knew that.
When I was young and stupid, I once failed to notice the unmarked car I was racing had put his siren on to pull me over, due to the volume pumping out of the six by nines on the back parcel shelf.
My phone headphones by contrast aren't even capable of fully drowning out the sounds of sitting on the tube when I'm unfortunate enough to be unable to ride to work. I could of course buy noise cancelling ones which would no doubt be as effective as the kick-ass car stereo of my youth.
So no, there's no difference between the abilities of the two technologies to isolate you from your surroundings, it's just a question of how you apply them.
But I suspect you knew that.
> if you think about it for a while you might be able to spot the difference.
I thought before I typed it but thanks for your snarky reply!
If you're using the public roads I believe it's perfectly reasonable to expect that you should be insured to cover damage or injury that you may cause to other road users. There is no valid reason for some modes of transport be immune IMO.
> I'll contact her today and see what she says about it all.
I don't know why, you've already said she had 5 min rant at you. If you are going thro' the insurance, leave them to deal with it (have they already arranged the recovery ?). If not just send her the bill, and ask her to pay or forward it to her contents insurers. You might want to check whether your premium will go up next year because of it.
Pedestrians? Pushchairs and prams?
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and at present it's at whether the vehicle has an engine or not.
Have you considered why practically all home insurance includes third party liability covering cycling? Might it be because claims are so infrequent and so low in value that it costs almost nothing to provide it?
The Swiss mandatory scheme was, I think, about a tenner a year fixed rate (no differentiation on risk). And that is in a country where everything is notoriously expensive.
All I'm pointing out is there's no difference between that and a car driver - unless their window is down you can't get a car driver's attention without shouting/waving/knocking on the window either. Why should a cyclist be required to hear more than a motorist?
> Pedestrians? Pushchairs and prams?
> The line has to be drawn somewhere, and at present it's at whether the vehicle has an engine or not.
> Have you considered why practically all home insurance includes third party liability covering cycling? Might it be because claims are so infrequent and so low in value that it costs almost nothing to provide it?
> The Swiss mandatory scheme was, I think, about a tenner a year fixed rate (no differentiation on risk). And that is in a country where everything is notoriously expensive.
IMO those who travel along the road on any sort of machine need to be insured. Those who merely cross shouldn't need insuring. It's just putting the line in a slightly different place.
It almost certainly wouldn't cost a lot but moving responsibility onto the cyclist rather than incorrectly assuming that everyone has household insurance would simplify things all round IMO.
> All I'm pointing out is there's no difference between that and a car driver - unless their window is down you can't get a car driver's attention without shouting/waving/knocking on the window either. Why should a cyclist be required to hear more than a motorist?
How many cyclists have mirrors on their bikes?
> I thought before I typed it but thanks for your snarky reply!
> If you're using the public roads I believe it's perfectly reasonable to expect that you should be insured to cover damage or injury that you may cause to other road users. There is no valid reason for some modes of transport be immune IMO.
Does that not equally apply to pedestrians and car passengers? Both can be very hazardous to both cyclists and cars (stepping out in front of you and opening roadside doors, respectively)?
> Has she admitted to running a red light? If she hasn't and the CCTV confirms she hasn't, be prepared for a possible back lash from an angry cyclist who has been knocked off thier bike and who has now had the seeds of an insurance claim planted inside thier head by your self.
> Not getting at you mate but just putting a different slant on it because if these things go to the solicitors or court, it's exactly what happens.
> Hope you get sorted.
I see where you're coming from but she ran a red and admitted that to me and the police.
They are only looking at the CCTV to confirm her story and she will likely be prosecuted.
No idea how much but my brother in law was fined £150 in London for crossing over the traffic light lines when they were red. He was on his road bike and didnt want to put his feet down so slowly crept over the line and was nabbed by a police cyclist.
He won't do again!
> How many cyclists have mirrors on their bikes?
Some do, I've never seen it as an issue though as I'm able to rotate my shoulders and neck far enough to look directly behind me, without a boot or rear seat passengers to obstruct my view.
I wish they'd do this more often - only one of my mates has ever been ticketed for it and most of us run lights on a daily basis. That and ticketing drivers for sitting in the boxes reserved for bikes at junctions.
Not on your nelly.
I wouldn't be falling over myself to get involved in an insurance claim, and I'd regard the small-claims thing as a lot of stress and bother for very little chance of a satisfactory outcome.
If the cyclist wasn't willing to chip in voluntarily, I'd just chalk it up to experience and the general cost of motoring (especially with poncy alloys), be grateful that no one was hurt and make a note to work on improving my observation for the future.
Hello mate, sorry about your crash, well done for not hitting the cyclist! I just wanted to say that as a out of work cyclist myself I wouldn't want to pay £200 in this situation, I certainly couldn't afford to pay £800 a year insurance which was my last third party quote for a car. I've worried about something like this myself, truth is I wouldn't hand over money, and you'd only get it if the authorities took it from my account. If you'd hit the front and popped the radiator or something it might have cost thousands of pounds to fix, from a practical view would you expect the cyclist to pay that? I'm not going to stop riding my bike and I'm unfortunately stuck to roads as all other paths tend to be covered in buildings.
As more people lose there jobs there's going to be more bikes on the road, I don't think bike licences or insurance or any of that stuff would be possible to enforce. I hope the cyclist is prosecuted in this situation and in an ideal world her fine should be spent on an alloy wheel, but I can't see it happening. As an aside I dislike cyclists running red lights, although I did once cycle straight through a red light without realising, so it does happen and it's easier to make the mistake on a bike imo.
Cool - does that mean that as a cyclist I can wreck whatever car I like and just say "Look mate - put it down to experience and accept that my carelessness is just part of the cost of motoring"
Personally, I am seriously considering getting bike insurance for this sort of thing. I just makes the whole process so much easier.
"It almost certainly wouldn't cost a lot but moving responsibility onto the cyclist rather than incorrectly assuming that everyone has household insurance would simplify things all round IMO. "
I see your point, but even the Swiss, fans of such things, abolished it because 99% of the cost of it was admin and hassle.
It would arguably be easier and cheaper, given the very low costs involved, to fund a scheme to pay out for cycle accidents from general taxation. Unlike car drivers, most cyclists will never require such a thing in their lifetime.
very few because they arent very effective (size/resistance and vibration mostly) and its also cyclists dont have the restrictions drivers or even motorcyclists have on movement.
"No idea how much but my brother in law was fined £150 in London for crossing over the traffic light lines when they were red. He was on his road bike and didnt want to put his feet down so slowly crept over the line and was nabbed by a police cyclist."
I would similarly like to see cyclists not using lights at night being fined, and their bicycle being impounded if they are caught walking away from the policeman then re-mounting without having fitted lights. And I am a cyclist who is fed up of people giving us a bad name by law-breaking *because they get away with it 99% of the time*.
But this, like everything of this type, requires more front line police that are not in cars and are not cameras. There are plenty of these in London, but not elsewhere.
I actually got rid of mine after being involved in an accident where I thought the road was clear to turn right from looking in the mirror, but in fact it was not. The coverage is not good enough, and turning your head around is not hard.
"Personally, I am seriously considering getting bike insurance for this sort of thing. I just makes the whole process so much easier."
Assuming you have it, check to see if your home insurance covers it. No point paying to be double-insured.
"I just wanted to say that as a out of work cyclist myself I wouldn't want to pay £200 in this situation"
Then cycle carefully and do not crash!
"I certainly couldn't afford to pay £800 a year insurance which was my last third party quote for a car."
The just-abolished mandatory cycle insurance in Switzerland was £10/year; the risk is very low, and therefore so are the premiums.
"I've worried about something like this myself, truth is I wouldn't hand over money, and you'd only get it if the authorities took it from my account. If you'd hit the front and popped the radiator or something it might have cost thousands of pounds to fix, from a practical view would you expect the cyclist to pay that?"
Yes, why not? Or claim it on your home insurance, if you have it. Or don't cycle through red traffic lights or commit other offences like that, and your chance of it happening will be near enough zero.
"I'm not going to stop riding my bike and I'm unfortunately stuck to roads as all other paths tend to be covered in buildings. "
Doesn't force you to run red lights or commit other offences as in this case.
"although I did once cycle straight through a red light without realising, so it does happen and it's easier to make the mistake on a bike imo"
Why? You are travelling much more slowly than a car, and you don't have the pillars obscuring your view.
It should be much *harder* to make the mistake on a bicycle. If you genuinely feel it is easier, you should perhaps do some cycle training, or give up cycling.
No, of course not, but that's a bit of a strawman I think. If you're *such* a careless cyclist, you probably won't live long enough to wreck too many cars anyway.
All I'm saying is that driving a van is expensive, and shit happens. On the upside, its incredibly convenient being able to drive yourself around and probably worth even more than it costs us.
I feel the same way about people who work themselves up into a fit of apoplexy if someone else's door touches theirs in a supermarket car park.
Sometimes, even if you feel you should be compensated for something its just more hassle than its worth. Life is too short to have a massive paddy about how unfair it all is, even if it actually is a little bit unfair.
> If the cyclist wasn't willing to chip in voluntarily, I'd just chalk it up to experience and the general cost of motoring (especially with poncy alloys), be grateful that no one was hurt and make a note to work on improving my observation for the future.
Chalk it up to experience? So if it were your car and let's exaggerate and say it was written off because of a cyclist, you would go "never mind, that's life" at least you were not hurt and I'll make sure I continue to avoid cyclists who break the law by running red lights.
What if you were badly injured due to their negligence, still ok? I bet it wouldn't be. What if you were the cyclist? Happy to break the law and I bet you wouldn't offer to pay.
I don't wish ill on people but if you break the law you have to pay. Maybe not to me but I'm sure she will get a sort sharp shock when she is told she is going to be fined/prosecuted for causing an accident.
"I feel the same way about people who work themselves up into a fit of apoplexy if someone else's door touches theirs in a supermarket car park."
I wouldn't say I "work myself up into a fit of apoplexy", but denting someone's door (rather than just touching carefully in a narrow space) is careless and inconsiderate and it should not happen.
I have more patience with kids doing it by accident, but adults should know better.
The word for the day has to be pragmatism. As others have said, it ISNT worth your time/effort/hassle/stress to pursue her for the money. If she offers, then great, but if not, then dont bother.
Wearing headphones, not wearing helmets, not wearing hi vis jackets and cycling without insurance is not breaking any law and personally I dont think it should be.
The number of Cyclists killed by drivers is huge every year, the number of drivers killed by cyclists? Wake up world. Very few. Drivers need to have a duty of care to other vunerable road users and cyclsits need to have a duty of care for themselves.
> Does that not equally apply to pedestrians and car passengers? Both can be very hazardous to both cyclists and cars (stepping out in front of you and opening roadside doors, respectively)?
I'd see pedestrians as a baseline, we're all pedestrians at one time or another. Using a bike or car is a choice that escalates the risk/hazard and should therefore be insured IMO.
I may be wrong but I'd assume that as a driver the actions of my passengers are covered by my insurance.
> Some do, I've never seen it as an issue though as I'm able to rotate my shoulders and neck far enough to look directly behind me, without a boot or rear seat passengers to obstruct my view.
Exactly you also have the ability to listen more clearly so why impede that ability?
I agree. I'm not saying it should happen, merely that it does.
When it happens to me, it doesn't spoil my day.
Sure, no problem. Email me your address and I'll pop something in the post to you. :O)
Amazingly bad attitude. Why should motorists have to consider accidents caused by cyclists as part of the general cost of motoring?
In winter I have to wear something over my ears to stop getting frostbite in them. Does that compromise my senses too?
"When it happens to me, it doesn't spoil my day"
Nor mine, but I would definitely say something if I saw someone do it to my car. If they caused serious damage by slamming the door back rather than a simple touch, I would be looking for their insurance details for a repair.
> The number of Cyclists killed by drivers is huge every year, the number of drivers killed by cyclists? Wake up world. Very few. Drivers need to have a duty of care to other vunerable road users and cyclsits need to have a duty of care for themselves.
107 in 2011 according to ROSPA, is that huge? If there are 25 million drivers then the chance of any one of them killing a cyclist is miniscule.
> Exactly you also have the ability to listen more clearly so why impede that ability?
Which is exactly the same reason that when driving my car I might do the same.
Why should it be OK in one of my modes of transport (which has substantial visual blind spots) but not the other (which doesn't)?
Again, bit of a strawman I think, but..
On one level, because our current culture of "This wasn't my fault, I DEMAND compensation from somebody" is really quite corrosive and unpleasant, and anything that further promotes that attitude is probably best avoided imo.
On a more pragmatic level, because the chances of actually recovering significant costs from an uninsured cyclist are slim.
If you offered me a temporary part time job that would involve fulminating about the unfairness of life, filling in endless forms and obsessing on the details of some relatively trivial accident for months on end in return for the chance to toss a coin at the end of it all and possibly win the price of an alloy wheel, I wouldn't take it.
Of course if its not actually about the money, but a campaign for "justice" that's different. It'd probably be more productive to get some tights and a cape and set myself up as a superhero, at least that way I'd get to give my mates a good laugh.
I would say that was 107 too many. Don't forget that 107 dead people mean 107 lots of parents, kids, friends and other relatives whose life will be changed forever. You might feel differently about that number if one of the 107 was your nearest and dearest. Or maybe it is just low value collateral damage used to justify our own lack of responsibility? After all, it is ONLY 107 dead people.
There's no way I'd sign a blank cheque at the roadside whether I believed the accident was my fault or not. I'd get a quote for a new tyre and whatever repair (or replacement) your wheel needs then give her a call, try again with some realistic numbers.
It seemed eminently sensible to me, do you know why they got rid of it?
How am I misquoting you?
> For entertainment.
> Which is exactly the same reason that when driving my car I might do the same.
> Why should it be OK in one of my modes of transport (which has substantial visual blind spots) but not the other (which doesn't)?
Because in a car you are equipped with mirrors that allow you to constantly monitor what is happening behind you, on a bike you don't have that facility and audio cues become more important. The lack of mirrors on a bike means that you have significantly larger blind spots than you do in a modern car IME.
Drivers need to have a duty of care to other vunerable road users and cyclsits need to have a duty of care for themselves.
nowhere in that sentence does it say cyclist DONT have a duty of care to other road users. It also doesnt say they do explicitly, but you mis quoted me and it is a subject I care deeply about as both a driver and cyclist going into central london most days.
Just my tuppence (driver and cyclist).
> Because in a car you are equipped with mirrors that allow you to constantly monitor what is happening behind you, on a bike you don't have that facility and audio cues become more important.
Most people are equipped with necks...
And getting used to having audio cues can get dodgy in itself if you get into the habit of relying on it, because it could lead to you getting into a nasty accident when you pull out in front of something that doesn't make any noise.
> Because in a car you are equipped with mirrors that allow you to constantly monitor what is happening behind you, on a bike you don't have that facility and audio cues become more important. The lack of mirrors on a bike means that you have significantly larger blind spots than you do in a modern car IME.
There's no need to constantly monitor what's going on behind you on a bike, you only need to know this when you're going to perform a manouver such as turning, braking, overtaking or otherwise changing your road positioning. Whilst riding in a constant road position and speed, it's the responsibility of the road users behind to avoid causing you a problem, not the other way around.
A quick look over your shoulder before you do perform one of these maneouvers gives you the full picture of what's behind. There is no blind spot - I can look forwards, to my side, and directly behind me. If in doubt, the field of vision from a look over the left shoulder overlaps the field of vision from a look over the right shoulder. You do not have this luxury in a car, which is precisely why you need to constantly monitor what's going on behind you - so you will be aware of anyone who may have drifted into a blind spot.
Out of interest - where would you draw the line?
Obviously £200 is small beer to you.
When do you think that it would be reasonable for the driver of a car damaged in the instance cited by the OP to expect the cyclist to cough up?
Say the OP was another cyclist. Let's say that due to the red light running lady mentioned in the OP they ended up injured (and not by another car driver that you can unfairly go after through their insurance).
Broken arm? Probably best just chalk it up to experience.
Loss of digit?
Loss of full use of arm / leg?
Where would you put the chalk down and start expecting people to take responsibility for their actions?
I realise that if it was a car driver injuring a cyclist then there would be no chalking up considered, what I don't get is why it's different for cyclists. "It doesn't happen often" isn't really an answer.
> Just my tuppence (driver and cyclist).
Too many people (from both camps) feel that their 'team' can do no wrong.
I think in Germany and Austria they have compulsory 3rd party cover for everything. i.e. you have to have an insurance policy which covers you cause an accident doing any activity that you wouldn't otherwise have insurance for. It covers walking, cycling, ski-ing etc but not driving because you have a separate insurance for that. It also covers you if, for example, you walk into a shop and knock a vase over or if your dog causes an accident. It's kind of sensible, really.
"I think in Germany and Austria they have compulsory 3rd party cover for everything"
Not by law, I think, but it is an expectation.
As noted, almost everyone has it through their home insurance!
Damage is estimated at £482. Insurance approved alloy wheel replacement with correct load bearing tyre and balancing etc.
I have also phoned the lady. She was down at the police station so I spoke to her hubby who is going to ring my garage, get the exact details of the damage and contact a couple of local garages to see what they say.
He was very friendly and said "leave it with me" and it will be sorted which I thought was actually very reasonable and in my eyes, the proper thing to do. He didn't say they would pay for it, but I got the impression that he will sort it and she still doesn't want to or rather, feels she should.
His wife apparently commutes 20 odd miles a day on her bike and she has a comprehensive bike insurance and I get the idea from him that she thinks her insurance is to claim off other people if she were on the end of an accident caused by someone else rather than her causing it.
Also, the police have reviewed the CCTV and she is indeed at fault. Red light, completely oblivious to the junction, although it is part of her daily commute...., that is why she is now at the cop shop.
I think it will be interesting to hear what action will be taken by the police.
It will be interesting to see
btw @Trangia - above 20mph the straps on my helmet cause so much wind noise that the only way I can tell if there is a car coming up behind me is to turn around and look. Below 20mph I can usually tell if a car is coming up behind me but in any case I turn around and look. Motorbikes have mirrors but their riders are always taught to turn and look before a manoeuvre. Being able to hear is nice but it doesn't come close to looking and more importantly seeing (there is a difference).
Harsh that she's now with the police, but fair. Every day I have to put up with bikes jumping red lights in front of me on my daily motorbike commute to work. I have seen quite a few near misses where a bike jumps a red and a car or motorbike nearly takes them out. Personally I think many cyclists behave appallingly on the road; and nine times out or ten a road rage incident on my commute involves a cyclist with a car or a cyclist with a motorbike.
> .. Why should a cyclist be required to hear more than a motorist?
I don't believe they are. Motorists are liable for prosecution if they drive with earphones in.
Don't think so. There is this in the highway code though (advisory, rather than mandatory):
Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
loud music (this may mask other sounds)
trying to read maps
inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
arguing with your passengers or other road users
eating and drinking
> Don't think so. There is this in the highway code though (advisory, rather than mandatory):
> Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as
> loud music (this may mask other sounds)
> trying to read maps
> inserting a cassette or CD or tuning a radio
> arguing with your passengers or other road users
> eating and drinking
Which brings me onto...
I get sick of motorcyclists filtering into advanced stop zones. I have to put up with this every time I ride a bike in central London. I have seen quite a few near misses when those motorbikes and the cyclists all set off together in a big group. I think many motorcyclists behave appallingly on the road, whether urban or rural.
Well, actually I don't - I realise that as a percentage of people riding motorbikes the bellends who take the racing line round corners, overtake lines of traffic round blind bends at 99mph and nearly cause accidents at traffic lights because they don't think the rules about ASZs apply to them are actually pretty tiny.
My £40 quid sub to CTC means I am insured if I cause a crash up to £10 million. Cyclists are far more likely to be on the receiving end but cases like yours do happen.
If there is a criminal case coming up it would be better to wait till the facts are on the court record then think about a small claim.
I would be inclined to take professional advice. Looks like your defendant could afford to meet a small judgement.
Well I agree that the advanced stop boxes shouldn't be used by motorbikes - so there :)
Although I think a better idea would be to make motorbikes able to use the boxes (I think this is what they do in Spain). After all, motorbikes are the fastest on the road, and cyclists are the slowest.
Yep I think she should pay, and I'm glad the law is on your side.
I'm not sure compulsory insurance for a cyclist would work though.... too dificult to police. I think if you did claim on your insurance then the insurance company would chase here for the money, they are probably quite good at it.
> I'd see pedestrians as a baseline, we're all pedestrians at one time or another. Using a bike or car is a choice that escalates the risk/hazard and should therefore be insured IMO.
I think that I would disagree with that. In my experience of city cycling, pedestrians are far more dangerous to me as a cyclist than I am to them. It is quite common to have someone step out into the road in front of you.
> Don't think so. There is this in the highway code though (advisory, rather than mandatory)
I don't think their is anything specific written in law on the matter, but such offences are normally caught under the "due care and attention" clauses.
So basically, you can be arrested for any of the above highway code items you mention if the police decide they are affecting your control of the vehicle.
While I see that in this circumstance the cyclist was in the wrong. I just don't see how "compulsory" insurance could:
1) Be policed. Bikes don't have a registration. If there had to be a national bike database can you imagine the costs?? it would be much, much better for the very small amount of money lost to drivers who have been involved in a accident with a bike (at the bikes fault) to be covered by some government scheme.
2) Be cost effective. If it was ~£10/yr in Switzerland then, as someone else said, most of that would quickly be swallowed up by administration costs.
Silly, silly idea.
This is interesting reading:
Good to hear something is coming from it, and it sounds like a nice sharp lesson for the lady cyclist as well.
thats the very problem, they are indeed faster and I often find them mixed up with cyclists in the advance stop zone in London. Its dangerous as they weave through the cyclists when the lights go green. The zone is designed to give cycles a safe zone in front of traffic where they wont get flattened as cars turn or squeezed as they move off. A safe haven, visable in front of drivers eyes so everybody knows they are there.
Adding motorbikes into this safety zone would just remove its very purpose, safety.
> Most people are equipped with necks...
> And getting used to having audio cues can get dodgy in itself if you get into the habit of relying on it, because it could lead to you getting into a nasty accident when you pull out in front of something that doesn't make any noise.
Absolute rubbish. You can use audio cues without ignoring other common sense precautions.
> There's no need to constantly monitor what's going on behind you on a bike, you only need to know this when you're going to perform a manouver such as turning, braking, overtaking or otherwise changing your road positioning. Whilst riding in a constant road position and speed, it's the responsibility of the road users behind to avoid causing you a problem, not the other way around.
> A quick look over your shoulder before you do perform one of these maneouvers gives you the full picture of what's behind. There is no blind spot - I can look forwards, to my side, and directly behind me. If in doubt, the field of vision from a look over the left shoulder overlaps the field of vision from a look over the right shoulder. You do not have this luxury in a car, which is precisely why you need to constantly monitor what's going on behind you - so you will be aware of anyone who may have drifted into a blind spot.
Sounds exactly like driving a car to me. You may choose to ride along like a fart in a daydream and ignore what is happening behind. The wise cyclist or driver takes notice of everything that is going on around him.
I'm not sure why you obsess aboput blindspots on cars, on modern cars they are very small indeed, adjust the mirrors correctly and they just don't exist on either of our cars. On top of this sensible road users will avoid doing anything silly enough to cause an accident whilst they are potentially in someones blind spot. Sadly the biggest danger I see is cyclists vainly trying to filter down a non-existant gap between a traffic queue and the pavement.
> Including my daughter when she cycles to school? I don't think so.
Why not? I have the dog insured for causing accidents.. she dashes out, car crashes..
a) probably because I almost hit a cyclist a while back who filtered up and then sat in my blind spot whilst I was sitting at a red traffic light (with my indicator on) waiting to turn right. I was close enough to making a right mess of him to leave a lasting impression.
b) because car drivers fail to notice me overtaking them on a daily basis. I find it hard to believe that every single instance is because the driver hasn't looked in his mirrors.
You don't have to do anything silly to be involved in an accident when you're in someone's blind spot - just not have time to react to what they do not knowing you're there (pull out round a slower cyclist without indicating for example). Riding in london, you're in people's blind spots all the time (particularly larger vehicles)
On this I agree with you. There's a reason we're supposed to overtake on the right. Unfortunately, the design of cycle lanes encourages cyclists to do exactly this.
They've probably got headphones on. Otherwise they'd be able to hear you coming. ;-)
"On top of this sensible road users will avoid doing anything silly enough to cause an accident whilst they are potentially in someones blind spot."
I agree with this, but by this definition most motorway drivers are not "sensible".
I generally aim to avoid...
1. Changing lanes into someone's blind spot, particularly a large vehicle like a lorry or coach.
2. Changing lanes immediately alongside someone who is also changing lanes, as it removes their option to abort their lane change if necessary.
3. Cutting people up when changing lanes.
I also always indicate in, while many drivers seem not to. This can at least mitigate the chance of two drivers, one in lane 3 having overtaken in lane 2 and looking to move in, and one in lane 1 looking to pull out, deciding both to change to lane 2 at the same time.
However, I find that most motorway drivers do *not* avoid these things.
When I was taught to drive, I was told to indicate to move out, but not to move back, as moving out to the overtaking lane is an optional manouver you need to inform others of, whereas moving back to the driving lane after you've overtaken is a requirement, so indicating you're going to do so is redundant. I seem to remember my instructor saying it would be a minor fault on the test. This advice may of course have changed by now.
Is this really the biggest danger to cyclists? Assumptions don't really help. What we need is a better understanding of how / why cyclists are killed and injured - this will then help us improve infrastructure and provide better training for all road users.
102 cyclists killed this year and counting.
(report of (admittedly speeding) taxi hitting alleged rlj'er and driver being held partly responsible for collision)
> Also, I presumed that the police would have done more when they arrived and I am presuming that she must have broken the law by causing an accident?
Not accidents nowadays, They are Road Traffic Collisions.
Definition of a road traffic collision
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:
Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classes as a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.
If they take place in a public place the police can investigate off-road collisions, for example, collisions in car parks, which, because they are open to the public, are deemed public places.
Pedal cycles are not mechanically-propelled vehicles in law.
> Is this really the biggest danger to cyclists? Assumptions don't really help. What we need is a better understanding of how / why cyclists are killed and injured - this will then help us improve infrastructure and provide better training for all road users.
> 102 cyclists killed this year and counting.
Try learning to read ;)
It's not an assumption about the wider situation it's a personal statement of the biggest danger that "I see" whilst driving in my own home area!
The only time I have ever come close to hitting a cyclist is when some muppet did this at dusk.
Sadly cyclists undertaking down narrow gaps at speed and assuming all will be OK is not uncommon around here.
She is apparently going to be prosecuted and fined under the road traffic act of 1988 and has been told to expect a fine of around £500.
Her hubby is happy to pay for the damage to the car using her cycling insurance policy, not out of their own pockets, but she doesn't want to do this however, according to the police, she has to immediately inform her insurance company of the details of why and when and they told me I am within my rights to contact them directly and tell them my side of the story in the hope that they may help me in the matter.
Not too sure how that will work but worth a try.
So she is insured. Sounds like good news, I should think that improves your chances of getting your wheel paid for greatly.
Make more sense to who exactly and for what reason?
She went through a red light.
You're not being at all unreasonable. By all means contact the police. Since she is uninsured (probably) I doubt you'll get any money out of her without a fight. That being the case it might be unrealistic of you to expect to recoup your losses. Not unreasonable, but unrealistic. I'd probably just take it on the chin if i were you.
I am really pleased that she sounds like she has seen sense and is sorting things reasonably.
> Make more sense to who exactly and for what reason?
Just a naive thought, if they're prosecuting her for indicident then surely you're due for a payout since you were the one with damages...
Soz mate, misread your first post, my apologies!
About the fine, yeah what you said :0)
Not only that; she blithely sailed through a red light, apparently totally oblivious. She's damned lucky the OP was more observant than she was, and managed to stop before running her down.
She should cough up and be grateful. And be prosecuted.
Because idiots cyclists like that put this cyclist's life in danger by making motorists think we're all idiots and 'fair game'.
She deserves to be prosecuted but I think a fine of £500 is unlikely and would be harsh. If the roles were reversed I very much doubt a motorist would receive such a penalty. In fact, I dare say many motorists (not the OP specifically) wouldn't have stopped.
I don't know why she wouldn't use her insurance to cover damages in the first instance. From what I gather reading the thread I imagine she has third party cover through an organisation such as British Cycling or the CTC. I'm not 100% on how that works, but as you pay a membership fee not a premium, unless there's an excess I don't see what it would cost her.
I agree actually that a large fine like that is probably disproportionate but maybe they are making an example of her? I do think she should be prosecuted for no other reason than she broke the law.
She has a quite comprehensive insurance with British Cycling and I have no idea why she doesn't want to use it to cover my repair costs. Her perogative I suppose but maybe she can't? I have no idea how these types of insurance work. I did contact her insurance today on the advice of the police, have emailed them a statement and they said it would be reviewed along with hers when It arrives.
They were aware that she had had an incident as she informed them yesterday and they did point out that although she has admitted it was her fault and this has been reported to the police, it is up to her if she wants to use her policy for "replacement or repair of items damaged in the road traffic incident"
Will just see how it pans out meanwhile as my car is in the garage, I am ironically back out on my bike with childs trailer after vowing not to use it as I find the local roads to dangerous to drive on!!
Even the basic Ride level (the only one for road use) has liability insurance of £10m. You claim against that. She does not have to agree to you making that claim. Any insurance that needs the guilty party to agree to the claim is worthless.
[quote]What is Third Party Liability Insurance?
This essential insurance cover will be of use if you are blamed for causing an incident and someone wants to pursue a claim against you. You are insured for claims up to £10m.[/quote]
This is the page you need http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/memst-Third-Party-Liability-Insurance-0
The guy who lives across the road is about 70 years old, and every weekend he goes off on his bike, does beteen 70 and a hundred miles, then back for tea. he has all the day-glo gear, and a helmet.
About 3 months ago he was hit from behind by someone in a 4x4, who didn't stop. Bill suffered multiple fractures, including his spine and skull. He was in a coma for 4 weeks. His wife, a lovely lady who used to bake cakes for us, couldn't cope., home alone, we tried to keep her company but she became ill and was admitted to hospital too. She died last week.
Bill is paralysed from the waist down, in a wheelchair. At the funeral, he couldn't talk, but he seemed to be getting the use of his arms back. they'll discharge him from hospital when they have set up the support to take care for him, and done all the adaptations in the house.
The police eventually traced the driver, someone got his number. He got six points on his licence, and a £120 fine.
In that case I am sure you will support the above campaign and will know others too that will support it.
Sorry to hear about Bill and his wife.
That is truly awful mate, really sorry to hear about that.
Jeez that's grim. :o(
Xx Just put that on a Torygraph forum - might make the haters listen
Fred, that is truly shocking. What a horrendous experience for all.
That is a desultory sentence! I had an incident a few years back where I fell asleep while driving and by the grace of good luck no one else was hurt. I tore multiple ligaments in my knee and had a year of physio rehab. I got 8 points and £850 fine and that was after an expensive lawyer getting it down from dangerous driving to careless.
I'm not being reactionary here - that guy should have been banned and jailed or at least given some kind of suspended sentence/community order.
And, sadly, all too typical of the law's response to this sort of incident.
<sitting here quietly fuming>
i've changed my view now it appears she is insured. Fire ahead with your claim would be my advice now. Go see a solicitor, they will probably do it on no win no fee.
I had a knock on the door today and the lady that caused the accident was there!
Had a cuppa and she handed me a cheque for £600 which pays for the damage and for my time, she said. With a helping nudge from her husband she "decided" she was being unreasonable so I took this opportunity to blatantly say that she was being unreasonable as she could easily have been in A and E and under a 1.5 tonne bus to which she agreed! (money not claimed on her insurance although her premium will go up as she had to report the accident to them)
I'm not normally given to this type of insult as it were but the whole thing has been getting on my t**s and it has caused me a massive inconvenience and not one thank you for not hitting her until today.
She has been told that the CCTV shows her running not only the red light which caused the accident but one further up the road which is not a cross roads more but a t junction where she could ride straight ahead as there was no risk of a car crossing over and hitting her.
Apparently the police decided to check the whole strecth of road which is about 3 k long. Her mitigation is that she was late for work and wasn't paying attention. She has been told to expect a fine of at least £500, taking into account the now 2 red lights and possibly some sort of road awareness course. (never heard of that for a cyclist?)
Anyway, alls well that ends well and all that. I got the feeling that she felt she was hard done by and begrudged the whole thing and only tokenly agreed it could have been worse. I suspect if it had of been worse, then that would be the only way she would realise the gravity of the situation.
Nowt as queer as folk.
Seems you have got a good and fair result.
Really really surprised at how severly the cyclist is being treated, just did not know this could happen to a cyclist. I wonder if she was very bolshie with the Police and just would not accept she was in the wrong and rubbed everyone up the wrong way.
I reckon a good result. I think as you say, she has been quite goby to the police and I did get the impression she has been inconvenienced by the whole thing and it really Isn't such a big deal so why all the fuss.
I have no idea how much people are fined for cycling incidents but as I posted above, my mate was fined a fair whack for creeping through a red light. I reckon a hefty fine would deter anyone from doing it again or a cycling ban maybe?
She now sounds more like the sort of numpty who thinks riding a bike makes you exempt from the laws of the road. Either that or she's just an arrogant shit.
A part of me still thinks he is being made an example of, and her attitude has done her no favours; if she was repentant from the outset, would the police have checked a 3k stretch of road?
Hopefully she'll buck her ideas up or stay off the bike and you can get your car fixed. A good result all round.
Sounds like you're lucky the police got involved, AFAIK there was nothing to stop her just jumping back on an cycling off.
If I ended up £1100 out of pocket i'd probably be pretty begrudging about the whole thing, regardless of how in the wrong I am. So I wouldn't be too hard on her. However, the one time I was at fault in an accident I was so embarrassed by the whole thing I completely owned up (though I could have disputed if I wanted to) but I know it was my fault so no point in punishing anyone else.
I think running a red on a T-junction is pretty forgiveable, especially if you're going straight across rather than joining the road. To run a cross-road or across traffic is suicide.
I'll be honest, as a cyclist and driver I find these debates on forums fascinating, more and more conflicts between bikes and cars are being talked about and as I have a foot in both camps I see sense in arguments presented on both sides. I feel that the issue will continue to grow in the public domain and that eventually it will have to be debated and reviewed by our police, the public and our politicians. I hope they see both sides of the coin.
No good deed goes un-punished ay? Glad you got the right result in the end and weren't left out of pocket.
Forget it now and just remember that you did a good thing and saved someone else from harm.
The other big silver lining is that at least they're not driving a car or larger vehicle. Imagine if your positions had been reversed. Thank goodness you were at the wheel.
I agree, but it merely greys the whole issue of red light jumping. At the end of the day, it ain't right for anyone to jump red lights. That said, I would really like to see traffic lights become a bit more intelligent. One lights I cross often holds all traffic and pedestrians at stop for about 30 seconds. Then there are the cross roads that have a pedestrian cycle, even if no pedestrian has pressed the button. No wonder there is congestion and impatient cyclists.
Elsewhere on the site
At a bar in Llanberis an old man chimed in And I thought he was out of his head Being a young man I just laughed it off When... Read more
This years ROCfest will be slightly different. We've decided to run a Climbing Festival, not just a competition! Over... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
Steve Dunning has made what is likely the tenth ascent of The New Statesman, the classic and bold gritstone arete at the Cow... Read more
Climbing Technology’s range of winter hardware continues to grow and for winter 2014 they have a crampon in the range to... Read more