Cyclist collision at mini round about
Comments
-
Having looked quickly through most of the posts, and being both an ex-cyclist (mobility prevents me doing so currently), and a car driver, I have to say that on balance I believe that Emma is less 'guilty' than the cyclist. If it's dark, he has no lights, how is she expected to see him unless she is wearing infra-red goggles?
Maybe a reason for her to look more carefully next time, but blame her for the accident? Not in my book.0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »Not sure that would work. Wouldn't it be better for the rider to claim against the driver's insurance rather than the car's? :beer:
What if it were stolen and the driver didn't have any?0 -
Ok so is it obvious that this wouldn't have happened to a competent careful driver?
Everyone seems to be focussing on the fact that I'm coming up with excuses, I'm being quite balanced here. Competent drivers are on the look out for foreseeable reasonable risks on the road, not for cyclists flying through round abouts with lights off. If we all were to be as cautious for the possibility at any moment for a cyclist to hit us with no lights on, no one would even make a move on a mini round about0 -
-
emmasaunders wrote: »Ok so is it obvious that this wouldn't have happened to a competent careful driver?
Everyone seems to be focussing on the fact that I'm coming up with excuses, I'm being quite balanced here. Competent drivers are on the look out for foreseeable reasonable risks on the road, not for cyclists flying through round abouts with lights off. If we all were to be as cautious for the possibility at any moment for a cyclist to hit us with no lights on, no one would even make a move on a mini round about
But cyclists flying round roundabouts, or riding down the country lanes round here, or doing anything else, around sunset without any lights is entirely forseeable.
Unless you drive round with your eyes closed (in which case there's no more argument) anyone who drives around that time will have seen unlit cyclists. That doesn't make them right, but it makes them forseeable.
I haven't at any point said "you were to blame" for this, but you absolutely are to blame for your obvious attitude that will mean the next one - who might not be so lucky - is also "unforseeable" to you.
I say again, STOP finding reasons why it "wasn't your fault" because who's fault it was doesn't matter. Take a tenth of the effort you've put this evening into justifying things and, instead, put it into learning from the experience and - next time - you may well spot the unlit cyclist before it happens.0 -
Not so. Modern bike lights (once you get beyond the '£5 for two' offferings in the supermarkets) are very powerful. I have two small ones, the size of a matchbox, which are piercingly bright - so much so that I have to angle them downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers. Around £40 each. My main light (commuting after dark on rural roads) is like a WW2 searchlight and can set fire to hedgerows.Even if they had a front light they're not exactly powerful
Cyclists can have decent lights if they choose to.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
emmasaunders wrote: »The Road Traffic Act 1991, s.42; The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, s.
is. As soon as the sun drops behind the horizon bicycle lights should be switched on even if there may be plenty of light left to see by on a clear evening. Failure to have the correct lights or reflectors can result in being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice where the maximum is £30[6] or you can be subject to a maximum fine of £1000 in the courts.
Interesting use of google and copying and pasting to suite your own arguement.
You've taken this website article http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/the-responsibilities-of-a-cyclist#source6 and then copy & pasted parts of the text.
Cycles are obliged to light up at "Night".
The definition of "Night" is "Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise)."
You can argue all you want on here, when the cyclist puts a claim in against your Insurance, your Insurers will pay his claim. They may not judge you to be 100% at fault but they will judge you to be at least 50% at fault which will mean the cyclist can claim whatever percentage they judge you to be at fault from your Insurance. If they pay out to the cyclist then you will lose part of your no claims bonus and have a claim regarded as a fault claim against you.0 -
Does this mean that if a car driver badly injured a pedestrian (eg a driver failed to give way at a zebra crossing) that the pedestrian would not be able to claim anything for their injuries unless the pedestrian has insurance?
No, pedestrians aren't operating a vehicle on the road.
Can a pedestrian who is knocked over claim on the cars insurance?0 -
Even if they had a front light they're not exactly powerful & if the bike was hidden by the car, it's unlikely you'd have picked out a feeble bike light in among car headlights.
You were unlucky, it could happen to any of us. I hope you don't get a claim against your insurance.
On a seperate note - Should bikes be allowed to claim against cars insurance? After all they don't have insurance.....
I have a feeling this will come as a shock to you.
A driver of a car that is not insured in anyway is legally entitled to claim from another vehicles insurance is the other other vehicle was at fault in the accident.
Why do you think different laws should apply to cyclists or pedestrians when an uninsured driver who legally should hold insurance can claim?0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards