This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I ran into a car that was making a right turn in front of me on my evening commute the other night. I was in the cycle lane when the car on my right stopped to allow the driver that hit me to make a right turn. I saw what was going on but had no chance of stopping time. The driver that hit me reckoned it was my fault as the car at my side "flashed to give her the right of way" and that if I couldn't stop then I was going too fast. I reckon she's wrong though?
I suffered no major harm other than bruising, though I was pretty stunned for a while and someone called the police and ambulance, and the police have sent me her insurance details. The daft thing is I don't know how to make a claim. If it had happened in my car I would have just called my insurer. But I don't have any specific cycle insurance. (Ironically I have been considering it recently)
My bike is insured for theft under my home contents policy, but I'm not sure about collision damage. Should I just get a quote for repairs and call her insurance company? Or do I need a solicitor?
I suffered no major harm other than bruising, though I was pretty stunned for a while and someone called the police and ambulance, and the police have sent me her insurance details. The daft thing is I don't know how to make a claim. If it had happened in my car I would have just called my insurer. But I don't have any specific cycle insurance. (Ironically I have been considering it recently)
My bike is insured for theft under my home contents policy, but I'm not sure about collision damage. Should I just get a quote for repairs and call her insurance company? Or do I need a solicitor?
In reply to hokkyokusei:
The bit about having right of way because the car next to you flashed their lights, sounds like bollocks. Probably something in the highway code to back that up, but seeing as I passed my test nearly 25 years ago, I couldn't be certain.
If you were going at less than the speed limit, then that also means you weren't going too fast.
The bit about having right of way because the car next to you flashed their lights, sounds like bollocks. Probably something in the highway code to back that up, but seeing as I passed my test nearly 25 years ago, I couldn't be certain.
If you were going at less than the speed limit, then that also means you weren't going too fast.
In reply to hokkyokusei:Sorry to hear of your bump.
"flashing light" do not mean you have right of way according to the Highway Code. It is the same as the horn "I'm here"
However in modern terms flashing of lights does indicate that the "flasher" agrees to give the other driver right of way.
Given our crowded roads we need a way of communicating with other road users so that we can reduce blockages at pinch points.
None of the above absolves the driver that you hit from driving without due care for other road users. Even if the first driver has given them right of way the other driver still needs to be sure that there is no other traffic that is going to be affected by their manouvere.
Have a word with the CTC they are very supportive of cyclists in these situations.
Off to double check that with my HWC
Robin
"flashing light" do not mean you have right of way according to the Highway Code. It is the same as the horn "I'm here"
However in modern terms flashing of lights does indicate that the "flasher" agrees to give the other driver right of way.
Given our crowded roads we need a way of communicating with other road users so that we can reduce blockages at pinch points.
None of the above absolves the driver that you hit from driving without due care for other road users. Even if the first driver has given them right of way the other driver still needs to be sure that there is no other traffic that is going to be affected by their manouvere.
Have a word with the CTC they are very supportive of cyclists in these situations.
Off to double check that with my HWC
Robin
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I had the exact same thing happen to me this time last year.
I had called the drivers insurers and they were very slow so went to see a no win no fee solicitor. The drivers insurers did not put up any resistance to this and I was £1300 better off a few months later.
I had the exact same thing happen to me this time last year.
I had called the drivers insurers and they were very slow so went to see a no win no fee solicitor. The drivers insurers did not put up any resistance to this and I was £1300 better off a few months later.
In reply to annieman:
Also, when I had a similar collision with a car the legal cover I had through my home insurance acted on my behalf against the car driver's insurance company - was a massive relief in my case!
Good luck
Simon
Also, when I had a similar collision with a car the legal cover I had through my home insurance acted on my behalf against the car driver's insurance company - was a massive relief in my case!
Good luck
Simon
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Also,you had no way of knowing that a car to your right and presumably in front of youat the time had flashed it's lights. Hope the bruises heal quickly. This sort of situation is one of my worst fears when i'm cycling to work in heavy traffic.
Also,you had no way of knowing that a car to your right and presumably in front of youat the time had flashed it's lights. Hope the bruises heal quickly. This sort of situation is one of my worst fears when i'm cycling to work in heavy traffic.
In reply to hokkyokusei: Just trying to clarify something, this was an oncoming car turning right across your cycle lane and the other carriageway? Doesn't sound like you were at fault and the car driver turned without checking
In reply to freerangecat:
Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through. This does not absolve the driver at all........ they are truning into your right of way, but in my opinion it shows poor awareness on the cyclist's part. Also, if he couldn't see the turning car, she probably couldn't see him. Again, this doesn't absolve her.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei)
>
> Also,you had no way of knowing that a car to your right and presumably in front of youat the time had flashed it's lights. Hope the bruises heal quickly. This sort of situation is one of my worst fears when i'm cycling to work in heavy traffic.
>
> Also,you had no way of knowing that a car to your right and presumably in front of youat the time had flashed it's lights. Hope the bruises heal quickly. This sort of situation is one of my worst fears when i'm cycling to work in heavy traffic.
Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through. This does not absolve the driver at all........ they are truning into your right of way, but in my opinion it shows poor awareness on the cyclist's part. Also, if he couldn't see the turning car, she probably couldn't see him. Again, this doesn't absolve her.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Glad to hear you're ok.
The other driver is in the wrong, sounds like. If the other driver 'allows you out' you still have to make sure the way is actually clear. She should have seen you and not made the maneuver. Out of interest, was the driver that hit you indicating or not?
Glad to hear you're ok.
The other driver is in the wrong, sounds like. If the other driver 'allows you out' you still have to make sure the way is actually clear. She should have seen you and not made the maneuver. Out of interest, was the driver that hit you indicating or not?
In reply to RankAmateur:
It doesn't just sound it, it IS. Totally.
YOU didn't give anyone the go ahead (no rights of way involved, you had right of way) to turn in front of you.
Stop feeling guilty and get something done about it.
> The bit about having right of way because the car next to you flashed their lights, sounds like bollocks.
It doesn't just sound it, it IS. Totally.
YOU didn't give anyone the go ahead (no rights of way involved, you had right of way) to turn in front of you.
Stop feeling guilty and get something done about it.
In reply to woolsack:
Exactly.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei) Just trying to clarify something, this was an oncoming car turning right across your cycle lane and the other carriageway?
Exactly.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Well the traffic was starting and stopping all of the time. The car on my left could have been stopping because the car in front of her stopped, which it had. I do take your point though. I did however see the turning car, but not in time to stop.
> (In reply to freerangecat)
> [...]
>
> Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through. This does not absolve the driver at all........ they are truning into your right of way, but in my opinion it shows poor awareness on the cyclist's part. Also, if he couldn't see the turning car, she probably couldn't see him. Again, this doesn't absolve her.
> [...]
>
> Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through. This does not absolve the driver at all........ they are truning into your right of way, but in my opinion it shows poor awareness on the cyclist's part. Also, if he couldn't see the turning car, she probably couldn't see him. Again, this doesn't absolve her.
Well the traffic was starting and stopping all of the time. The car on my left could have been stopping because the car in front of her stopped, which it had. I do take your point though. I did however see the turning car, but not in time to stop.
In reply to mattrm:
Thanks.
Not sure. By the time I saw her, the indicator would probably have been obscured.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei)
>
> Glad to hear you're ok.
>
> Glad to hear you're ok.
Thanks.
> Out of interest, was the driver that hit you indicating or not?
Not sure. By the time I saw her, the indicator would probably have been obscured.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
As he said, he did see the situation evolve, but he was not in a situation to react in time. I don't think this is poor awareness at all.
> Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through. This does not absolve the driver at all........ they are truning into your right of way, but in my opinion it shows poor awareness on the cyclist's part.
As he said, he did see the situation evolve, but he was not in a situation to react in time. I don't think this is poor awareness at all.
In reply to hokkyokusei: Give Cycle Claims a ring. They sorted me out last year and sent my details to a solicitors who got me a payment for £3500 for bike/personal damage when a car turned across my path.
http://www.cycle-claims.co.uk/
A car flashing it's lights to let another car through does not give the other car a clear path. Any more than it would if you were another car.
This is one of my bugbears while out on the road.
http://www.cycle-claims.co.uk/
A car flashing it's lights to let another car through does not give the other car a clear path. Any more than it would if you were another car.
This is one of my bugbears while out on the road.
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Imagine for a moment this was a dual lane road and a lorry had flashed its lights to let in a car. The oncoming car then ploughs into a car in the inside lane which it didnt see because it was obscured by the lorry. Who is at fault?
In reply to hokkyokusei: BTW you dont need to involve your household insurers at any stage. Once youve made the call to the guys above they take care of the lot. The only thing you have to do is fill in the paperwork and perhaps attend a medical if you were injured.
In reply to Andy Mason:
Show me where I questioned fault?
In your scenario I would say exactly the same. Poor hazard awareness. It's even part of the driving text now to sit in front of a video and identify hazards as you drive.
Nowhere did I question fault. Fault is clear.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Imagine for a moment this was a dual lane road and a lorry had flashed its lights to let in a car. The oncoming car then ploughs into a car in the inside lane which it didnt see because it was obscured by the lorry. Who is at fault?
Show me where I questioned fault?
In your scenario I would say exactly the same. Poor hazard awareness. It's even part of the driving text now to sit in front of a video and identify hazards as you drive.
Nowhere did I question fault. Fault is clear.
In reply to hokkyokusei: If you are in a marked cycle lane and the car was cutting across it to turn into a side street I think it has to be utter bollocks for them to claim it was anything other than their mistake, doesn't ? If it had been a pedestrian crossing the side road that they hit, saying some one else flashed them to give them way would be just as plainly ridiculous an a excuse.
In reply to hokkyokusei: For me this does raise a question over filtering in general. A pedestrian crossing the road is travelling at maybe 1-1.5ms. A cyclist could be between 5-8ms. Quite a big difference in traffic where it's difficult to see. As a driver, you tend to look, then start to move off. It can take you around a second to change from accelerating to braking if you then suddenly see a cyclist. Thats 5-8m of travel. Up to a couple of car lenghts.
A pedestrian would have barely stepped off the kerb in that time. In addition they are slightly further away on the pavement increasing the angle of vision.
Again, this does not absolve the driver from fault......... but this is what I mean by hazard awareness.
A pedestrian would have barely stepped off the kerb in that time. In addition they are slightly further away on the pavement increasing the angle of vision.
Again, this does not absolve the driver from fault......... but this is what I mean by hazard awareness.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I'm not sure I agree with this. When I'm driving, and most of the drivers I've been in cars with, would stop short of a side road if traffic ahead prevented them clearing access to it, irrespective of whether a vehicle is currently trying to enter or exit. Especially if the cause for holding the traffic is likely to be more than a second or so, I don't find it unusual for something to appear and wish to use the road after you're already stopped.
I accept a large number of drivers pull right up to the bumper of the car infront without consideration of the road layout, but I wouldn't consider the action of positioning to allow subsequent events to unfold as effortlessly as possible indicative of them necessarily waving a vehicle through
> (In reply to freerangecat)
> [...]
>
> Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through.
> [...]
>
> Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators...... he's letting someone through.
I'm not sure I agree with this. When I'm driving, and most of the drivers I've been in cars with, would stop short of a side road if traffic ahead prevented them clearing access to it, irrespective of whether a vehicle is currently trying to enter or exit. Especially if the cause for holding the traffic is likely to be more than a second or so, I don't find it unusual for something to appear and wish to use the road after you're already stopped.
I accept a large number of drivers pull right up to the bumper of the car infront without consideration of the road layout, but I wouldn't consider the action of positioning to allow subsequent events to unfold as effortlessly as possible indicative of them necessarily waving a vehicle through
In reply to Liam M:
Well it depends on the situation of course. If the driver had stopped and the way ahead was clear, I would assume he was letting someone through.
If he had stopped short of the junction with traffic just the other side, I would assume that someone MIGHT be turning through it.
Hazard awareness is something everyone on the road should be practising.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
>> [...]
>
> I accept a large number of drivers pull right up to the bumper of the car infront without consideration of the road layout, but I wouldn't consider the action of positioning to allow subsequent events to unfold as effortlessly as possible indicative of them necessarily waving a vehicle through
Well it depends on the situation of course. If the driver had stopped and the way ahead was clear, I would assume he was letting someone through.
If he had stopped short of the junction with traffic just the other side, I would assume that someone MIGHT be turning through it.
Hazard awareness is something everyone on the road should be practising.
In reply to RankAmateur:
Without commenting on this particular case, that is clearly not in general the case (eg travelling at 39 mph in a 40 mph zone when just 5 metres from a red light or travelling at 69 mph on a motorway covered in snow and ice)
> If you were going at less than the speed limit, then that also means you weren't going too fast.
Without commenting on this particular case, that is clearly not in general the case (eg travelling at 39 mph in a 40 mph zone when just 5 metres from a red light or travelling at 69 mph on a motorway covered in snow and ice)
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Especially where visibility is limited.
I don't know chapter and verse, but I'm sure there's something in the highway code about travelling at a speed where you are able to stop within the distance you can see....... or something like that.
Not being difficult here....... just how I see things. And once again....... I'm not questioning fault. The driver cut across his right of way and they're at fault.
I don't know chapter and verse, but I'm sure there's something in the highway code about travelling at a speed where you are able to stop within the distance you can see....... or something like that.
Not being difficult here....... just how I see things. And once again....... I'm not questioning fault. The driver cut across his right of way and they're at fault.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Your criticism of the OP for poor hazard awareness is completely unfounded based on the information described. Awareness may or may not have been poor, but it is a question of timing added to numerous unknown (to us) variables.
What you've really said is, "there was poor hazard awareness displayed in the imaginary circumstances I have built up around the described situation." I think you'll agree it makes you look rather silly at best.
Your criticism of the OP for poor hazard awareness is completely unfounded based on the information described. Awareness may or may not have been poor, but it is a question of timing added to numerous unknown (to us) variables.
What you've really said is, "there was poor hazard awareness displayed in the imaginary circumstances I have built up around the described situation." I think you'll agree it makes you look rather silly at best.
In reply to digby:
Absolutely correct
a) the flasher may cede their rights, but not yours
b) the flashee should still procede with caution and awareness of other road users
Please do other cyclists a favour and persue the driver for damages - people like that need to be taught that the roads aren't just for cars.
P.S. You get bonus points if she mentions road tax
> (In reply to RankAmateur)
>
> [...]
>
> It doesn't just sound it, it IS. Totally.
>
> YOU didn't give anyone the go ahead (no rights of way involved, you had right of way) to turn in front of you.
>
> Stop feeling guilty and get something done about it.
>
> [...]
>
> It doesn't just sound it, it IS. Totally.
>
> YOU didn't give anyone the go ahead (no rights of way involved, you had right of way) to turn in front of you.
>
> Stop feeling guilty and get something done about it.
Absolutely correct
a) the flasher may cede their rights, but not yours
b) the flashee should still procede with caution and awareness of other road users
Please do other cyclists a favour and persue the driver for damages - people like that need to be taught that the roads aren't just for cars.
P.S. You get bonus points if she mentions road tax
In reply to parkovski: Nope. I think it was poor hazard awareness for all the reasons I mentioned. Hazard awareness is not about reacting to a danger, it's about assessing POTENTIAL hazards.
I'd say exactly the same of a driver in the same situatuion.
I'd say exactly the same of a driver in the same situatuion.
In reply to hokkyokusei: Go and see a solicitor. Her saying 'it was [your] fault as the car at my side "flashed to give her the right of way"', was a huge howler. It's a common mistake people make but it's against the highway code, and a slam dunk in an insurance case.
Good luck.
Good luck.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Hazard perception is about being a good driver. The requirement isn't absolute in the sense that any one driver cannot be expected in law to be 100% aware of all potential hazards, but there is a clear expectation to make an effort in that direction. I don't think there is any information above that can lead you to think that he wasn't making such an effort. However, there is a distinct possibility the turning driver hasn't assessed her hazards properly, especially because the driver was stationary assessing the road and the potential safety of turning. Sounds like she just didn't think about the cycle lane or the cyclist being there. I have experienced this thing quite alot. I find even going a moderate speed like 15mph (6metres/sec), when cars break like that your view is often obscured and you are out into the midst of the junction well before you've had time to assess the situation and react. Almost always the car forgoing its right of way, usually unaware (or worse inconsiderate) of the cyclist behind/left of them does not result in a oncoming turning driver not assessing all the potential hazards.
Hazard perception is about being a good driver. The requirement isn't absolute in the sense that any one driver cannot be expected in law to be 100% aware of all potential hazards, but there is a clear expectation to make an effort in that direction. I don't think there is any information above that can lead you to think that he wasn't making such an effort. However, there is a distinct possibility the turning driver hasn't assessed her hazards properly, especially because the driver was stationary assessing the road and the potential safety of turning. Sounds like she just didn't think about the cycle lane or the cyclist being there. I have experienced this thing quite alot. I find even going a moderate speed like 15mph (6metres/sec), when cars break like that your view is often obscured and you are out into the midst of the junction well before you've had time to assess the situation and react. Almost always the car forgoing its right of way, usually unaware (or worse inconsiderate) of the cyclist behind/left of them does not result in a oncoming turning driver not assessing all the potential hazards.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
not really. They could be stopping since they know they cant clear the junction and dont want to block it.
> Except perhaps hazard awareness? Pretty much any driver would assume if the car in front stops short in traffic at a junction with no indicators
not really. They could be stopping since they know they cant clear the junction and dont want to block it.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Somebody who turns right across other road users (you) coming the other way should pay for any damage to you and the bike.
Everybody makes mistakes but....
...she told then the vulnerable victim ("pretty stunned") that she had right of way so she's dangerously stupid or more likely dishonest.
Either way she deserves no sympathy so go for a no-win/no-fee solicitor to make her insurer take your claim seriously.
If you don't go for a UKC recommendation look at the ads for solicitors Cycling Weekly.
Somebody who turns right across other road users (you) coming the other way should pay for any damage to you and the bike.
Everybody makes mistakes but....
...she told then the vulnerable victim ("pretty stunned") that she had right of way so she's dangerously stupid or more likely dishonest.
Either way she deserves no sympathy so go for a no-win/no-fee solicitor to make her insurer take your claim seriously.
If you don't go for a UKC recommendation look at the ads for solicitors Cycling Weekly.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I should add, this happened to me once almost exactly as described, except the car turning was a rolls royce silver shadow, I went straight into his front nearside, went over the handlebars, over the bonnet and landed head (helmet) first on the road on the other side rolling kidney side next onto the edge of the kerb. However, unlike your situation, they guy, well into his 70s, parked the car, got out, apologised and confessed he hadn't seen me, then got his mate to push/carry my bike the mile home while he drove me, as I was pretty beat up. There was some scratches to his car, which he didn't even mention. He gave me his details, but because he'd been so damn human about the whole thing, and the repairs to the bike were nothing I couldn't handle cheaply myself, I didn't feel in anyway inclined to take it further, even though I pissed blood that evening!!!
I should add, this happened to me once almost exactly as described, except the car turning was a rolls royce silver shadow, I went straight into his front nearside, went over the handlebars, over the bonnet and landed head (helmet) first on the road on the other side rolling kidney side next onto the edge of the kerb. However, unlike your situation, they guy, well into his 70s, parked the car, got out, apologised and confessed he hadn't seen me, then got his mate to push/carry my bike the mile home while he drove me, as I was pretty beat up. There was some scratches to his car, which he didn't even mention. He gave me his details, but because he'd been so damn human about the whole thing, and the repairs to the bike were nothing I couldn't handle cheaply myself, I didn't feel in anyway inclined to take it further, even though I pissed blood that evening!!!
In reply to hokkyokusei: Have a look at this thread, it should give you a lot of decent advice - http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40052&t=12722930
In reply to Jimbo W:
How come in these threads........ the cyclist never seems to contribute to the danger? Funny that. Replace filtering cyclist with a car in a two lane road and you'd all have your pitchforks out for them for not noticing the signs and travelling too fast on the inside lane.
Anyhoo....... have fun, be safe.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Hazard perception is about being a good driver (surely you mean road user). The requirement isn't absolute in the sense that any one driver cannot be expected in law to be 100% aware of all potential hazards,(never suggested this was the case. Accidents do happen) but there is a clear expectation to make an effort in that direction. I don't think there is any information above that can lead you to think that he wasn't making such an effort. (Yes, there is. This situation (from what's written) can't just have developed in an instant. The car stopped...... for the reasons I mentioned about this should generate a red flag in the mind of those around asking WHY has it stopped? I did cover the possible scenarios. however, he did state he was unable to stop suggesting he WAS going a bit fast considering the traffic around him was not. anyway........ there's usually no discussing properly with the kind of cyclist that generally posts here..... so I won't) However, there is a distinct possibility the turning driver hasn't assessed her hazards properly,(Yes, and at every stage I mentioned that the fault was hers. I also showed how a cyclist travels a lot faster than a pedestrian so liking one to the other is not comparing apples and apples) especially because the driver was stationary assessing the road and the potential safety of turning.(I went through this and how it can happen) Sounds like she just didn't think about the cycle lane or the cyclist being there. (I went through this, it is perfectly possible she didn't think of cyclists, it's also perfectly possible that his speed while filtering was such that she did look, saw no one....... pulled away then noticed him.) I have experienced this thing quite alot.(So have I, I have also experienced being almost run over by a filtering cyclist travelling at spped.) I find even going a moderate speed like 15mph (6metres/sec), when cars break like that your view is often obscured and you are out into the midst of the junction well before you've had time to assess the situation and react. Almost always the car forgoing its right of way, usually unaware (or worse inconsiderate) of the cyclist behind/left of them does not result in a oncoming turning driver not assessing all the potential hazards.
>
> Hazard perception is about being a good driver (surely you mean road user). The requirement isn't absolute in the sense that any one driver cannot be expected in law to be 100% aware of all potential hazards,(never suggested this was the case. Accidents do happen) but there is a clear expectation to make an effort in that direction. I don't think there is any information above that can lead you to think that he wasn't making such an effort. (Yes, there is. This situation (from what's written) can't just have developed in an instant. The car stopped...... for the reasons I mentioned about this should generate a red flag in the mind of those around asking WHY has it stopped? I did cover the possible scenarios. however, he did state he was unable to stop suggesting he WAS going a bit fast considering the traffic around him was not. anyway........ there's usually no discussing properly with the kind of cyclist that generally posts here..... so I won't) However, there is a distinct possibility the turning driver hasn't assessed her hazards properly,(Yes, and at every stage I mentioned that the fault was hers. I also showed how a cyclist travels a lot faster than a pedestrian so liking one to the other is not comparing apples and apples) especially because the driver was stationary assessing the road and the potential safety of turning.(I went through this and how it can happen) Sounds like she just didn't think about the cycle lane or the cyclist being there. (I went through this, it is perfectly possible she didn't think of cyclists, it's also perfectly possible that his speed while filtering was such that she did look, saw no one....... pulled away then noticed him.) I have experienced this thing quite alot.(So have I, I have also experienced being almost run over by a filtering cyclist travelling at spped.) I find even going a moderate speed like 15mph (6metres/sec), when cars break like that your view is often obscured and you are out into the midst of the junction well before you've had time to assess the situation and react. Almost always the car forgoing its right of way, usually unaware (or worse inconsiderate) of the cyclist behind/left of them does not result in a oncoming turning driver not assessing all the potential hazards.
How come in these threads........ the cyclist never seems to contribute to the danger? Funny that. Replace filtering cyclist with a car in a two lane road and you'd all have your pitchforks out for them for not noticing the signs and travelling too fast on the inside lane.
Anyhoo....... have fun, be safe.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Rubbish, the same would be apply.
Are you some kind of forum masochist?
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Replace filtering cyclist with a car in a two lane road and you'd all have your pitchforks out for them for not noticing the signs and travelling too fast on the inside lane.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> Replace filtering cyclist with a car in a two lane road and you'd all have your pitchforks out for them for not noticing the signs and travelling too fast on the inside lane.
>
Rubbish, the same would be apply.
Are you some kind of forum masochist?
I cycle both here and in the Netherlands and the difference is huge.
When cycling along a cycle lane in slow traffic (i.e. undertaking) I pretty much expect cars to cross. I'll cover the brakes and maybe ease back a little on the speed. I basically expect cars to pay no attention to the fact they are not just crossing the carriageway, but also the cycle lane.
I think it's partly because cycle lanes are not often well marked or thought out, just tagged onto the side of the road.
In contrast, in the Amsterdam, the bike is king. When turning off a road, drivers check their inside blind sport to see if bikes are on the cycle lane and will almost always stop to let the bikes go.
If I see a car about to turn I often ease up or brake. At this point I often get quizzed by my girlfriend (who is inevitably on the back of the bike) "What are you doing! You have right of way..."
I think it'll be a long time until our roads are like that, in the meantime, I'd expect drivers turning right to cut you up.
As others have said though - That driver most most definitely in the wrong.
Incidentally, I've given up flashing people to let them go. I'm not being rude, I'm just letting them make their own decision.
When cycling along a cycle lane in slow traffic (i.e. undertaking) I pretty much expect cars to cross. I'll cover the brakes and maybe ease back a little on the speed. I basically expect cars to pay no attention to the fact they are not just crossing the carriageway, but also the cycle lane.
I think it's partly because cycle lanes are not often well marked or thought out, just tagged onto the side of the road.
In contrast, in the Amsterdam, the bike is king. When turning off a road, drivers check their inside blind sport to see if bikes are on the cycle lane and will almost always stop to let the bikes go.
If I see a car about to turn I often ease up or brake. At this point I often get quizzed by my girlfriend (who is inevitably on the back of the bike) "What are you doing! You have right of way..."
I think it'll be a long time until our roads are like that, in the meantime, I'd expect drivers turning right to cut you up.
As others have said though - That driver most most definitely in the wrong.
Incidentally, I've given up flashing people to let them go. I'm not being rude, I'm just letting them make their own decision.
In reply to Fultonius:
This is exactly the reason not to flash, as it encourages the person to whom you are flashing to move before they have made their own full assessment of the situation.
> Incidentally, I've given up flashing people to let them go. I'm not being rude, I'm just letting them make their own decision.
This is exactly the reason not to flash, as it encourages the person to whom you are flashing to move before they have made their own full assessment of the situation.
In reply to elsewhere:
CTC has some recommendations as well i think (and is worth joining for the insurance and campaigning aspects).
> If you don't go for a UKC recommendation look at the ads for solicitors Cycling Weekly.
CTC has some recommendations as well i think (and is worth joining for the insurance and campaigning aspects).
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Fair enough. I would say on your part, that hazard awareness might come into it, but it's hard to say, not having seen the road in question. Also if there was a line of traffic, then you might have found it impossible to see over the cars I guess? Maybe worth upgrading the brakes on your bike so you can stop quicker?
On her part, the Highway Code is quite explicit about flashing head lights:
"110 - Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
111 - Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully."
So she should have had a good look and not just gone and the excuse, we'll I'd been flashed so it was ok to go is total oblocks.
> Not sure. By the time I saw her, the indicator would probably have been obscured.
Fair enough. I would say on your part, that hazard awareness might come into it, but it's hard to say, not having seen the road in question. Also if there was a line of traffic, then you might have found it impossible to see over the cars I guess? Maybe worth upgrading the brakes on your bike so you can stop quicker?
On her part, the Highway Code is quite explicit about flashing head lights:
"110 - Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
111 - Never assume that flashing headlights is a signal inviting you to proceed. Use your own judgement and proceed carefully."
So she should have had a good look and not just gone and the excuse, we'll I'd been flashed so it was ok to go is total oblocks.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
As others have said, she was totally in the wrong. That said though, this is one of the reasons I pretty much never use cycle lanes in london. When you overtake a line of traffic on the right, you can see/be seen by the cars turning right into a minor road, and you usually have a bit more room to manouver when someone is turning right out of a side road onto the road you're on.
You're also much more likely to be spotted by a driver in front of you turning right without indicating than the reverse scenario of a driver turning left across the cycle lane, as we're much more conditioned to look for other vehicles on that side (that being the side you're supposed to pass on and all that).
Add in the dangers of car doors opening, people stepping off the kerb, anyone in the cab of a lorry being totally unable to see you, and being obscured from the field of vision of a driver arriving at the junction from a side road for longer, riding in a lane in the gutter just makes no sense to me.
As others have said, she was totally in the wrong. That said though, this is one of the reasons I pretty much never use cycle lanes in london. When you overtake a line of traffic on the right, you can see/be seen by the cars turning right into a minor road, and you usually have a bit more room to manouver when someone is turning right out of a side road onto the road you're on.
You're also much more likely to be spotted by a driver in front of you turning right without indicating than the reverse scenario of a driver turning left across the cycle lane, as we're much more conditioned to look for other vehicles on that side (that being the side you're supposed to pass on and all that).
Add in the dangers of car doors opening, people stepping off the kerb, anyone in the cab of a lorry being totally unable to see you, and being obscured from the field of vision of a driver arriving at the junction from a side road for longer, riding in a lane in the gutter just makes no sense to me.
I can't believe the OP even has any doubt about this - the opposing driver wrongly accepted an incorrect invitation to proceed and failed to see an approaching cyclist. It's quite clearly the turning driver's fault. Did the OP make a report to the Police? They should have been involved as an injury was caused.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not. It's down to you to proceed with caution as this sort of thing is common.
It's all well and good it being someone else's fault but that doesn't help you when you are in the back of an ambulance instead of at your destination.
Check the cycle lane doesn't end at the road junction. Some do.
If it doesn't then it's the motorists fault for pulling out when it wasn't clear for her to do so. Contact her insurance company and claim for your dammage.
As I say, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, learn from your accident and ride more slowly when in slow moving traffic.
If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not. It's down to you to proceed with caution as this sort of thing is common.
It's all well and good it being someone else's fault but that doesn't help you when you are in the back of an ambulance instead of at your destination.
Check the cycle lane doesn't end at the road junction. Some do.
If it doesn't then it's the motorists fault for pulling out when it wasn't clear for her to do so. Contact her insurance company and claim for your dammage.
As I say, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, learn from your accident and ride more slowly when in slow moving traffic.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Nope. A cyclist cannot be expected to track the speed of traffic on his right. If a car decided to stop you are not obliged to stop too.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei)
>
> If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not. It's down to you to proceed with caution as this sort of thing is common.
>
>
> If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not. It's down to you to proceed with caution as this sort of thing is common.
>
Nope. A cyclist cannot be expected to track the speed of traffic on his right. If a car decided to stop you are not obliged to stop too.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I'd say that the cyclist is not at fault for several reasons. Above all, the presence of a cycle lane means that he was not flitering, just that the traffic in the cycle lane was moving faster, which is a complete justification for passing another vehicle on the left.
The speed limit is not relevant as you should drive for the conditions, but being aware of hazards doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to avoid every threat.
It happened to me last night, but without mishap. Car flashed (I saw its lights on the lorry in front of it) and a Range Rover pulled out of a side street from the left. I just stopped in time. The day-glo stuff and my two nuclear-bright flashing lights on the front (in daylight) obviously counted for nothing
I'd say that the cyclist is not at fault for several reasons. Above all, the presence of a cycle lane means that he was not flitering, just that the traffic in the cycle lane was moving faster, which is a complete justification for passing another vehicle on the left.
The speed limit is not relevant as you should drive for the conditions, but being aware of hazards doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to avoid every threat.
It happened to me last night, but without mishap. Car flashed (I saw its lights on the lorry in front of it) and a Range Rover pulled out of a side street from the left. I just stopped in time. The day-glo stuff and my two nuclear-bright flashing lights on the front (in daylight) obviously counted for nothing
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I think you should go for it she's clearly in the wrong.
However! As you mention it being at night, check the time the accident happened and the regulations that apply. I was in an accident and they wanted to know all sorts, to check my bike was within the letter of the law, including did I have pedal reflectors. Anyway because of the time of the accident and my bike setup, I was fully withing the law. I was told that if my bike wasn't up to the legal regulations it would have been a contributing factor in the accident. So check your bike is legal first
I went through a solicitor that a client of mine told me was good for sorting out accident stuffs. I wouldn't expect a quick payout though. My total repairs came to just under £400* and 7 months on the other drivers insurance is still battling it despite witnesses and the police and ambulance services being present :-P
Richard
*I decided I could live with the bike being all scratched and scraped because it's not possible to get the same frame anymore.
I think you should go for it she's clearly in the wrong.
However! As you mention it being at night, check the time the accident happened and the regulations that apply. I was in an accident and they wanted to know all sorts, to check my bike was within the letter of the law, including did I have pedal reflectors. Anyway because of the time of the accident and my bike setup, I was fully withing the law. I was told that if my bike wasn't up to the legal regulations it would have been a contributing factor in the accident. So check your bike is legal first
I went through a solicitor that a client of mine told me was good for sorting out accident stuffs. I wouldn't expect a quick payout though. My total repairs came to just under £400* and 7 months on the other drivers insurance is still battling it despite witnesses and the police and ambulance services being present :-P
Richard
*I decided I could live with the bike being all scratched and scraped because it's not possible to get the same frame anymore.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
i'm not sure that's true
ok you are on a four lane road waiting to turn right across oncoming traffic
the vehicle in the opposing right hand lane flashes to cross do you
a: cross immeadiately, you now have right of way?
b: look to see if the traffic on the inside lane is also allowing you across before you move?
i'm not sure that's true
ok you are on a four lane road waiting to turn right across oncoming traffic
the vehicle in the opposing right hand lane flashes to cross do you
a: cross immeadiately, you now have right of way?
b: look to see if the traffic on the inside lane is also allowing you across before you move?
In reply to Papillon:
Yes they can. I'm not suggesting stopping if the traffic is stopped. I'm suggesting being able to stop if a car or pedestrian appears between stationary cars. As the OP has found to his cost.
As I say, they may legally be in the wrong but you're the one who gets hurt.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> Nope. A cyclist cannot be expected to track the speed of traffic on his right. If a car decided to stop you are not obliged to stop too.
> [...]
>
> Nope. A cyclist cannot be expected to track the speed of traffic on his right. If a car decided to stop you are not obliged to stop too.
Yes they can. I'm not suggesting stopping if the traffic is stopped. I'm suggesting being able to stop if a car or pedestrian appears between stationary cars. As the OP has found to his cost.
As I say, they may legally be in the wrong but you're the one who gets hurt.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
drivers (look at my user name and pause for a second before you get your nickers in a twist) you are driving something that can kill poeple if you do the wrong thing, therefore you need to be responsible for your actions more than the people you plow into for getting in your way!
are cyclist to blame sometimes? heck yeah... especially for jumping red lights, dark clothing and no lights at night makes you suicidal in my book!
rallymania, is a car driver, cyclist and a pedestrian therefore must be hated by everyone!?!?!?
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> I'm suggesting being able to stop if a car or pedestrian appears between stationary cars.
> [...]
>
> I'm suggesting being able to stop if a car or pedestrian appears between stationary cars.
drivers (look at my user name and pause for a second before you get your nickers in a twist) you are driving something that can kill poeple if you do the wrong thing, therefore you need to be responsible for your actions more than the people you plow into for getting in your way!
are cyclist to blame sometimes? heck yeah... especially for jumping red lights, dark clothing and no lights at night makes you suicidal in my book!
rallymania, is a car driver, cyclist and a pedestrian therefore must be hated by everyone!?!?!?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei)
>
> If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not.
>
> If you are travelling down the inside of the traffic you are undertaking. Regardless of there being a cycle lane or not.
Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
In reply to Papillon:
Why? That would imply this in some way harms me. It doesn't, it's just discussion.......... and if you actually look at what I say, most of the time it's actually pretty fairly balanced and not at all one sided.
So no, not a masochist. Some people will disagree but just accept what I say as opinion, some will agree. Some think I'm an idiot, some get irate.
None of which really affects me in any way.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Rubbish, the same would be apply.
>
> Are you some kind of forum masochist?
> [...]
>
> Rubbish, the same would be apply.
>
> Are you some kind of forum masochist?
Why? That would imply this in some way harms me. It doesn't, it's just discussion.......... and if you actually look at what I say, most of the time it's actually pretty fairly balanced and not at all one sided.
So no, not a masochist. Some people will disagree but just accept what I say as opinion, some will agree. Some think I'm an idiot, some get irate.
None of which really affects me in any way.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Driver at fault.
Give Penny a call.
Superb service.
http://www.leighday.co.uk/Our-team/partners-at-ld/Penny-Knight
Driver at fault.
Give Penny a call.
Superb service.
http://www.leighday.co.uk/Our-team/partners-at-ld/Penny-Knight
In reply to MJH:
NO, I did not ignore this. In most of my posts I reiterated that the driver was undoubtably in the wrong. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. ALL I said is that it was poor hazard awareness on the part of the cyclist. As someone else mentioned.......... if I were riding I'd be covering brakes and actively looking for that situation because it's just so likely given the stuff I've said about speeds, reaction times, visibility issues etc.
Why? They can only see so far into such a narrow cycle lane which is obscured by traffic and a cycle travelling at 5-8ms could easily catch a driver out. It might take a second or more to get onto the clutch and brake and in that time the cyclist could have moved 1-2 car lenghts ( the cyclist did say they didn't have time to stop, suggesting some speed)
It's an easy accident to happen on roads such as ours in traffic.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
> [...]
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
NO, I did not ignore this. In most of my posts I reiterated that the driver was undoubtably in the wrong. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. ALL I said is that it was poor hazard awareness on the part of the cyclist. As someone else mentioned.......... if I were riding I'd be covering brakes and actively looking for that situation because it's just so likely given the stuff I've said about speeds, reaction times, visibility issues etc.
> If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
Why? They can only see so far into such a narrow cycle lane which is obscured by traffic and a cycle travelling at 5-8ms could easily catch a driver out. It might take a second or more to get onto the clutch and brake and in that time the cyclist could have moved 1-2 car lenghts ( the cyclist did say they didn't have time to stop, suggesting some speed)
It's an easy accident to happen on roads such as ours in traffic.
In reply to MJH:
Indeed that's a pretty big 'should' though isn't it? Let's all cycle down cycle lanes safe in the knowledge that if we get killed it'll be someone else's fault.
It was the car driver's fault and the OP was riding carefully and managed not to get seriously injured. I've seen too many accidents where the cyclist (or motorcyclist) has come out very badly because the speed was much higher, and yet fails to see how they could have lessened the severity of the accident or even avoided it completely.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
> If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
> [...]
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
> If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
Indeed that's a pretty big 'should' though isn't it? Let's all cycle down cycle lanes safe in the knowledge that if we get killed it'll be someone else's fault.
It was the car driver's fault and the OP was riding carefully and managed not to get seriously injured. I've seen too many accidents where the cyclist (or motorcyclist) has come out very badly because the speed was much higher, and yet fails to see how they could have lessened the severity of the accident or even avoided it completely.
In reply to MJH:
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I'm also interested in this. A work colleague provoked me into looking into the legalities of undertaking in a cycle lane and I couldn't find anything either way.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
> If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
>
> Have you anything at all to back that up being relevant where a cycle lane is involved? It seems a fairly large distinction which you (and Wonko) are ignoring between a normal road-road situation and a road-cycle lane situation.
>
> If the car was crossing a cycle lane then the driver should have been well aware that a cyclist could be coming along.
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I'm also interested in this. A work colleague provoked me into looking into the legalities of undertaking in a cycle lane and I couldn't find anything either way.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Some relevant precedents:
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/road-traffic-incidents
Looks like it comes down to the specific circumstances rather than a general "undertaking in a cycle lane" (etc) is always ok. Which makes sense.
Some relevant precedents:
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/road-traffic-incidents
Looks like it comes down to the specific circumstances rather than a general "undertaking in a cycle lane" (etc) is always ok. Which makes sense.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not misunderstanding your contribution to this thread.
It has always been my intention to cycle defensively. As an example I am totally paranoid about the "driver turning left across a cycle lane" scenario. For whatever reason I was not as paranoid about the "driver turning right across my path" issue. Yes, it appears she was in the wrong, but it doesn't really help if the inscription on your tombstone says "it wasn't his fault"
Exactly. Lesson learned.
> (In reply to MJH)
> [...]
>
> NO, I did not ignore this. In most of my posts I reiterated that the driver was undoubtably in the wrong. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. ALL I said is that it was poor hazard awareness on the part of the cyclist. As someone else mentioned.......... if I were riding I'd be covering brakes and actively looking for that situation because it's just so likely given the stuff I've said about speeds, reaction times, visibility issues etc.
>
> [...]
>
> NO, I did not ignore this. In most of my posts I reiterated that the driver was undoubtably in the wrong. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. ALL I said is that it was poor hazard awareness on the part of the cyclist. As someone else mentioned.......... if I were riding I'd be covering brakes and actively looking for that situation because it's just so likely given the stuff I've said about speeds, reaction times, visibility issues etc.
>
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not misunderstanding your contribution to this thread.
It has always been my intention to cycle defensively. As an example I am totally paranoid about the "driver turning left across a cycle lane" scenario. For whatever reason I was not as paranoid about the "driver turning right across my path" issue. Yes, it appears she was in the wrong, but it doesn't really help if the inscription on your tombstone says "it wasn't his fault"
> Why? They can only see so far into such a narrow cycle lane which is obscured by traffic and a cycle travelling at 5-8ms could easily catch a driver out. It might take a second or more to get onto the clutch and brake and in that time the cyclist could have moved 1-2 car lenghts ( the cyclist did say they didn't have time to stop, suggesting some speed)
> It's an easy accident to happen on roads such as ours in traffic.
> It's an easy accident to happen on roads such as ours in traffic.
Exactly. Lesson learned.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Thank you.
> (In reply to MJH)
> [...]
>
> Indeed that's a pretty big 'should' though isn't it? Let's all cycle down cycle lanes safe in the knowledge that if we get killed it'll be someone else's fault.
>
Well exactly!> [...]
>
> Indeed that's a pretty big 'should' though isn't it? Let's all cycle down cycle lanes safe in the knowledge that if we get killed it'll be someone else's fault.
>
> It was the car driver's fault and the OP was riding carefully and managed not to get seriously injured. I've seen too many accidents where the cyclist (or motorcyclist) has come out very badly because the speed was much higher, and yet fails to see how they could have lessened the severity of the accident or even avoided it completely.
Thank you.
In reply to Mooncat:
Quite!
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> Indeed, being in the right doesn't make hospital food taste any better.
>
> Indeed, being in the right doesn't make hospital food taste any better.
Quite!
In reply to Talius Brute: Contributory negligence. Nice find. So the motorist could be 85% to blame and the cyclist 15%? Or similar.
In reply to Fultonius:
I believe that the rule in the Netherlands is such that in a bike vs car accident the car is automatically considered at fault, unless they can prove otherwise. Therefore drivers know they will be prosecuted for dangerous driving in the event that they hit a cyclist and take care. By the same token I believe that in a bike vs pedestrian accident the cyclist is always considered at fault unless they can prove otherwise. It's a rule that seems to take account of the likely injuries in accidents - makes a lot of sense.
> In contrast, in the Amsterdam, the bike is king. When turning off a road, drivers check their inside blind sport to see if bikes are on the cycle lane and will almost always stop to let the bikes go.
>
> If I see a car about to turn I often ease up or brake. At this point I often get quizzed by my girlfriend (who is inevitably on the back of the bike) "What are you doing! You have right of way..."
>
> I think it'll be a long time until our roads are like that, in the meantime, I'd expect drivers turning right to cut you up.
>
> If I see a car about to turn I often ease up or brake. At this point I often get quizzed by my girlfriend (who is inevitably on the back of the bike) "What are you doing! You have right of way..."
>
> I think it'll be a long time until our roads are like that, in the meantime, I'd expect drivers turning right to cut you up.
I believe that the rule in the Netherlands is such that in a bike vs car accident the car is automatically considered at fault, unless they can prove otherwise. Therefore drivers know they will be prosecuted for dangerous driving in the event that they hit a cyclist and take care. By the same token I believe that in a bike vs pedestrian accident the cyclist is always considered at fault unless they can prove otherwise. It's a rule that seems to take account of the likely injuries in accidents - makes a lot of sense.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I'm a CTC member. I collided with a runaway dog last year. Broken arm & bike. Sought CTC advice and they pointed me to RJW who do a shedload of cycling claims. I was happy with the way they dealt with my case.
http://www.rjw.co.uk/legal-services/personal-injury/cycling-accident-compen...
You don't have to be a CTC member to use them - but CTC membership gives you third party insurance.
I'm a CTC member. I collided with a runaway dog last year. Broken arm & bike. Sought CTC advice and they pointed me to RJW who do a shedload of cycling claims. I was happy with the way they dealt with my case.
http://www.rjw.co.uk/legal-services/personal-injury/cycling-accident-compen...
You don't have to be a CTC member to use them - but CTC membership gives you third party insurance.
NEVER FLASH SOMEONE...this is what happens. the flasher is most to blame, then the driver for not checking.
Hope you have managed to find out the solution to your insurance problem, if not, you could always go back to the police and see what they think the best course of action is... Good luck!
Hope you have managed to find out the solution to your insurance problem, if not, you could always go back to the police and see what they think the best course of action is... Good luck!
In reply to RachelP:
Rachael - the Police will not offer advice on civil litigation. (I have it on Government authority that they are just a bunch of ****ing plebs - but I wouldn't go that far myself.)
The OP needs to get professional advice - ideally from a solicitor who specialises in cycling claims. Beware "claims monkeys" who advertise on daytime TV - and anyone offering advice - even on this forum of wondrous knowledge!
Rachael - the Police will not offer advice on civil litigation. (I have it on Government authority that they are just a bunch of ****ing plebs - but I wouldn't go that far myself.)
The OP needs to get professional advice - ideally from a solicitor who specialises in cycling claims. Beware "claims monkeys" who advertise on daytime TV - and anyone offering advice - even on this forum of wondrous knowledge!
In reply to AlunP: There is no need to get a lawyer or solicitor involved unless you have no joy with her insurance company.
I've had a couple of claims where another car has hit my car and I've not involved my insurance company as I was third party only. The other insurance company have paid up no problems.
Contact her insurance company in the first instance. Then worry about the next step.
I've had a couple of claims where another car has hit my car and I've not involved my insurance company as I was third party only. The other insurance company have paid up no problems.
Contact her insurance company in the first instance. Then worry about the next step.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Agree, best to follow their insurance, but make sure you pursue it fairly officiously. I was run over a few years ago by a car pulling out of a side road without looking, no damage to me but my bike was crushed under the wheels and was a write-off.
I claimed on the driver's insurance and got the run around - passed from dept to dept, and even company to company (within the same insurance group), until one day after weeks of them messing around I decided to email from my work email (I work for a Govt Dept which covers regulatory issues like this) - got a call back within 30 mins saying "Mr Brute, happy to pay out the full amount today"...
Agree, best to follow their insurance, but make sure you pursue it fairly officiously. I was run over a few years ago by a car pulling out of a side road without looking, no damage to me but my bike was crushed under the wheels and was a write-off.
I claimed on the driver's insurance and got the run around - passed from dept to dept, and even company to company (within the same insurance group), until one day after weeks of them messing around I decided to email from my work email (I work for a Govt Dept which covers regulatory issues like this) - got a call back within 30 mins saying "Mr Brute, happy to pay out the full amount today"...
In reply to hokkyokusei: Hope you are not too shaken by what has happened mate.
I think we have established that the car driver was at fault here, but let's be realistic - the same thing could happen again tomorrow.
What can you do about it? Well, the way I see it is that as a cyclist you are often less visible than most of the traffic on the road and this is often a contributing factor to accidents - so be pre-active about being seen.
I got a bike for the first time in years last year and until recently used a climbing helemt for cycling as it allowed me to have a headtorch on it which under less than perfect weather I often have on flash mode. Being higher up than a normal bike light means that it is more easily seen and also you can turn your head to be seen at junctions or going around bends with walls or over the top of cars as in yur case.
I have changed my helmet now to a 'multisport' helmet rated for climbing and biking and the headtorch compatability was the key selling point for exactly this reason. Same applies to your rear light - having one on your helmet is more easily seen and stick onto flash mode if the weather is gloomy.
Apologies if I sound patronising - just trying to plant some seeds.
Good luck with the insurance claim!
The Baron
I think we have established that the car driver was at fault here, but let's be realistic - the same thing could happen again tomorrow.
What can you do about it? Well, the way I see it is that as a cyclist you are often less visible than most of the traffic on the road and this is often a contributing factor to accidents - so be pre-active about being seen.
I got a bike for the first time in years last year and until recently used a climbing helemt for cycling as it allowed me to have a headtorch on it which under less than perfect weather I often have on flash mode. Being higher up than a normal bike light means that it is more easily seen and also you can turn your head to be seen at junctions or going around bends with walls or over the top of cars as in yur case.
I have changed my helmet now to a 'multisport' helmet rated for climbing and biking and the headtorch compatability was the key selling point for exactly this reason. Same applies to your rear light - having one on your helmet is more easily seen and stick onto flash mode if the weather is gloomy.
Apologies if I sound patronising - just trying to plant some seeds.
Good luck with the insurance claim!
The Baron
In reply to rmt:
Presumption of liability in the Netherlands (as well as a number of other European countries) operates in the civil, not the criminal domain. That means that it applies when one party is seeking compensation from another following an accident, but does not apply when the authorities are considering whether a prosecution is appropriate. Indeed there is an argument that, were presumption of liability to apply in criminal matters, this would go against the presumption of innocence, and would quite likely mean that any trial could be argued to be unfair and thus contrary to human rights law.
> I believe that the rule in the Netherlands is such that in a bike vs car accident the car is automatically considered at fault, unless they can prove otherwise. Therefore drivers know they will be prosecuted for dangerous driving in the event that they hit a cyclist and take care.
Presumption of liability in the Netherlands (as well as a number of other European countries) operates in the civil, not the criminal domain. That means that it applies when one party is seeking compensation from another following an accident, but does not apply when the authorities are considering whether a prosecution is appropriate. Indeed there is an argument that, were presumption of liability to apply in criminal matters, this would go against the presumption of innocence, and would quite likely mean that any trial could be argued to be unfair and thus contrary to human rights law.
In reply to Baron Weasel:
It's also illegal.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/12/made
> I have changed my helmet now to a 'multisport' helmet rated for climbing and biking and the headtorch compatability was the key selling point for exactly this reason. Same applies to your rear light - having one on your helmet is more easily seen and stick onto flash mode if the weather is gloomy.
It's also illegal.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/12/made
In reply to DancingOnRock:
True, but useless.
See also the amber reflectors on pedals paragraph.
I rather thought that the requirement for lights to be steady rather than flashing had fallen into disuse by common practice, even though it was still a requirement in law.
I passed two cyclists in black, unlit, last night - I was my usual moving XMas tree (black, but very sparkly)
True, but useless.
See also the amber reflectors on pedals paragraph.
I rather thought that the requirement for lights to be steady rather than flashing had fallen into disuse by common practice, even though it was still a requirement in law.
I passed two cyclists in black, unlit, last night - I was my usual moving XMas tree (black, but very sparkly)
In reply to nniff: You can have flashing, but you also must have steady ones too. As a driver, it is impossible to gauge speed of a flashing light and it's direction of travel.
In reply to Ghastly Rubberfeet:
Seriously?
It is part of the moving vehicle in this case the cyclist is 'the load'.
Cyclists with head torches are similar to incorrectly adjusted hardlights and can dazzle the driver. Then you've got serious problem as not only can the driver not see you, he can't see anything else!
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> No it's not.
>
> It's attached to the cyclist and not the bike.
>
> No it's not.
>
> It's attached to the cyclist and not the bike.
Seriously?
It is part of the moving vehicle in this case the cyclist is 'the load'.
Cyclists with head torches are similar to incorrectly adjusted hardlights and can dazzle the driver. Then you've got serious problem as not only can the driver not see you, he can't see anything else!
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Cycle lighting law is crazily complicated:
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-lighting
Cycle lighting law is crazily complicated:
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-lighting
In reply to DancingOnRock: I do have a fixed light too - but only put it on when it's dark or getting dark. Would be very suprised if I ever got pulled up on it and if I did I would tell the officer that he might like to consider using his time educating the local kids with no lights...
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Agreed, but as a driver, at least you know there is something there to be avoided and hence take action to slow down until you have figured out what "it" is.
> (In reply to nniff) You can have flashing, but you also must have steady ones too. As a driver, it is impossible to gauge speed of a flashing light and it's direction of travel.
Agreed, but as a driver, at least you know there is something there to be avoided and hence take action to slow down until you have figured out what "it" is.
In reply to EeeByGum: Sure. But be aware of the timescales and distances. At 30mph the motorist is travelling 13m/s. If your light is flashing once a second then the motorist could quite easily have covered 6m before seeing the light come on. At night it can take a human being between 2 and 3 seconds to react to a hazardous situation. Adding extra time to that 3 seconds is up to you but I'd make sure I've got a permanent light as well.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
The flashing lights is in no way going to exonerate the idiot in the car. That means nothing. You are 100% in the right and the motorist who shall be referred to as the idiot is entirely at fault. You were not going too fast. The idiot just wants to avoid responsibility for his actions and will make up any bollocks on the spot to try and make you admit responsibility. Check with British cycling as how to go about getting your costs from the idiot. Also ask the police if they are going to prosecute the idiot for his stupidity. These idiots need to be taken off the road.
I hope you are well on the road to recovery. Crystal Legal services deal with incidents (not an accident cos that would imply no liability) - tel 01270446600
Good luck and safe cycling.
> I ran into a car that was making a right turn in front of me on my evening commute the other night. I was in the cycle lane when the car on my right stopped to allow the driver that hit me to make a right turn. I saw what was going on but had no chance of stopping time. The driver that hit me reckoned it was my fault as the car at my side "flashed to give her the right of way" and that if I couldn't stop then I was going too fast. I reckon she's wrong though?
>
> I suffered no major harm other than bruising, though I was pretty stunned for a while and someone called the police and ambulance, and the police have sent me her insurance details. The daft thing is I don't know how to make a claim. If it had happened in my car I would have just called my insurer. But I don't have any specific cycle insurance. (Ironically I have been considering it recently)
>
> My bike is insured for theft under my home contents policy, but I'm not sure about collision damage. Should I just get a quote for repairs and call her insurance company? Or do I need a solicitor?
>
> I suffered no major harm other than bruising, though I was pretty stunned for a while and someone called the police and ambulance, and the police have sent me her insurance details. The daft thing is I don't know how to make a claim. If it had happened in my car I would have just called my insurer. But I don't have any specific cycle insurance. (Ironically I have been considering it recently)
>
> My bike is insured for theft under my home contents policy, but I'm not sure about collision damage. Should I just get a quote for repairs and call her insurance company? Or do I need a solicitor?
The flashing lights is in no way going to exonerate the idiot in the car. That means nothing. You are 100% in the right and the motorist who shall be referred to as the idiot is entirely at fault. You were not going too fast. The idiot just wants to avoid responsibility for his actions and will make up any bollocks on the spot to try and make you admit responsibility. Check with British cycling as how to go about getting your costs from the idiot. Also ask the police if they are going to prosecute the idiot for his stupidity. These idiots need to be taken off the road.
I hope you are well on the road to recovery. Crystal Legal services deal with incidents (not an accident cos that would imply no liability) - tel 01270446600
Good luck and safe cycling.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Forgive me for being confused but in your first post you wrote;
'I ran into a car that was making a right turn in front of me on my evening commute the other night. I was in the cycle lane when the car on my RIGHT stopped to allow the driver that hit me to make a right turn. I saw what was going on but had no chance of stopping time. The driver that hit me reckoned it was my fault as the car at my side "flashed to give her the right of way" and that if I couldn't stop then I was going too fast. I reckon she's wrong though?
So what was this car on your LEFT that was stopping and starting?
The only way you could have moving traffic on your left would be if you were not on a cycle path but riding down the center of the road and past the moving traffic.
In this situation, the driver who turned in and hit you would still be in the wrong.
If you were on a cycle lane then you were either next to the pavement, part of the pavement or running along the side of parked cars to your left. If it was a half pavement cycle path then you have to give way to traffic turning into side roads.
Could you clarify what you mean when you say you had slow moving traffic to your left?
Forgive me for being confused but in your first post you wrote;
'I ran into a car that was making a right turn in front of me on my evening commute the other night. I was in the cycle lane when the car on my RIGHT stopped to allow the driver that hit me to make a right turn. I saw what was going on but had no chance of stopping time. The driver that hit me reckoned it was my fault as the car at my side "flashed to give her the right of way" and that if I couldn't stop then I was going too fast. I reckon she's wrong though?
So what was this car on your LEFT that was stopping and starting?
The only way you could have moving traffic on your left would be if you were not on a cycle path but riding down the center of the road and past the moving traffic.
In this situation, the driver who turned in and hit you would still be in the wrong.
If you were on a cycle lane then you were either next to the pavement, part of the pavement or running along the side of parked cars to your left. If it was a half pavement cycle path then you have to give way to traffic turning into side roads.
Could you clarify what you mean when you say you had slow moving traffic to your left?
In reply to hokkyokusei:
Join British Cycling for £25 per year and get all the help you need in cases like this as well as insurance to cover you if it ever is your fault - worldwide!! best £25 you could ever spend.
Join British Cycling for £25 per year and get all the help you need in cases like this as well as insurance to cover you if it ever is your fault - worldwide!! best £25 you could ever spend.
The driver is *100%* in the wrong.
BOTH drivers are wrong in fact.
The highway code EXPLICITLY states that you should not flash headlights to indicate that someone should move off.
You should join the CTC and have their specialist solicitors take up your case.
BOTH drivers are wrong in fact.
The highway code EXPLICITLY states that you should not flash headlights to indicate that someone should move off.
You should join the CTC and have their specialist solicitors take up your case.
In reply to hokkyokusei: what you describe is exactly what happened to me about 10 years ago. i was a member of ctc and they took over everything. i was awarded about £1000 compo and the full cost of bike repair and also they paid all my pay back to my employers for the time i was off work.the thing i remember most about it is that the woman got out of her car and wanted to know if there was any damage to her car rather than if i was ok sprawled allover the road with my bike in bits.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
No, they can both be flashing: http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/08/bike-lights-and-reflectors-the-basics/
I agree that only showing flashing lights is a bad idea, though.
> You can have flashing, but you also must have steady ones too.
No, they can both be flashing: http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/08/bike-lights-and-reflectors-the-basics/
I agree that only showing flashing lights is a bad idea, though.
In reply to hokkyokusei: Well this thread got nicely high jacked didn't it! Can't beat a Internet forum to debate liability... In short, and as a few others have mentioned, speak to a solicitor and they'll sort out your claim. From what you've described it's doubtful that the insurance company for the driver will dispute liability but your solicitor will explain all this... Try and use a recommended firm- no win, no fee company's are absolutely fine as long as its a decent one. Oh and don't expect any quick results, insurance claims take time but don't let that put you off. Good luck.
In reply to DemolitionRed:
You are aren't you. He didn't say anything about any traffic on his left.
He was in a cycle lane with traffic on his right. Then a car either pulled out of a turning to turn right and go through the stationary traffic, or was going in the opposite direction and turned right across the stationary traffic to go into the turning.
It still shows how accidents happen even when you can see them unfolding in front of you. He could see the accident happening but could not stop in time.
> (In reply to hokkyokusei)
> Forgive me for being confused
> Forgive me for being confused
You are aren't you. He didn't say anything about any traffic on his left.
He was in a cycle lane with traffic on his right. Then a car either pulled out of a turning to turn right and go through the stationary traffic, or was going in the opposite direction and turned right across the stationary traffic to go into the turning.
It still shows how accidents happen even when you can see them unfolding in front of you. He could see the accident happening but could not stop in time.
In reply to hokkyokusei:
I'd echo the recommendation made by others to use a solicitor. Your home insurance may cover you for legal fees - check. I'm in CTC and have had a couple of very nasty scrapes with which the CTCs retained solicitors were a huge help. On both occasions a vehicle entered my path when I had the right of way, and on neither occasion had the driver seen me. One was on a mucky night when I guess the light on the front of my bike was lost in the miasma of street and vehicle lights and reflections from the wet road. The other was in broad daylight when I was stupid enough to have the sun behind me!
General points (1) if you're driving and want to let someone out then stop by all means but don't flash - you have no control over any other traffic, seen or unseen (2) if someone "flashes you out" it means nothing in law, so whether you're on a bike or in something with a lid on proceed with extreme caution. I have seen a car "flash" a lady with a pushchair out from behind a row of parked cars into oncoming traffic!
I'd echo the recommendation made by others to use a solicitor. Your home insurance may cover you for legal fees - check. I'm in CTC and have had a couple of very nasty scrapes with which the CTCs retained solicitors were a huge help. On both occasions a vehicle entered my path when I had the right of way, and on neither occasion had the driver seen me. One was on a mucky night when I guess the light on the front of my bike was lost in the miasma of street and vehicle lights and reflections from the wet road. The other was in broad daylight when I was stupid enough to have the sun behind me!
General points (1) if you're driving and want to let someone out then stop by all means but don't flash - you have no control over any other traffic, seen or unseen (2) if someone "flashes you out" it means nothing in law, so whether you're on a bike or in something with a lid on proceed with extreme caution. I have seen a car "flash" a lady with a pushchair out from behind a row of parked cars into oncoming traffic!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...