Cyclist rear ended me

verybigchris

Strider590 wrote: »

Would like the know how a cyclist is gonna hit the back of a car in nose to the tail rush hour traffic.

Riding primary behind slow moving traffic and doesn't notice the lights go red.

RichardD1970

Strider590 wrote: »

And I could fill the post limit with videos where drivers have overtaken cyclist and the cut in to stop for lights or traffic.

I could equally fill another post with videos where drivers have tried to block cyclists or bikers from legally filtering/lane-splitting.

Would like the know how a cyclist is gonna hit the back of a car in nose to the tail rush hour traffic.

OP doesn't say "nose to tail" anywhere that's just another assumption on your part.

Rush hour traffic moving at, say 10-20mph, cyclist following, not paying attention/distracted, driver breaks, cyclist doesn't.

Simple!

neilmcl

Strider590 wrote: »

Not really, how else would a cyclist "immediately" hit the back of the car? OP must have just overtaken the cyclist.

Maybe he simply wasn't paying attention!

aardvaak

arcon5 wrote: »

Wow! That's one hell of an assumption!

I think that is typical of cyclists thinking and arrogance

vikingaero

Car stopped at pedestrian crossing. Cyclist overtaking/filtering crashes into back. End of. Why do we have to make so many stories/assumptions/!!!!!!!! about what happened? Oh the evil car driver vs. cyclist scenario again!

brat

arcon5 wrote: »

Wow! That's one hell of an assumption!

This incident may not have played out as Strider described, but it is one of the most common reasons for having to brake sharply on a bike. Car driver overtakes cyclist having not looked far enough ahead, realises s/he shouldn't have overtaken and brakes for a hazard that the cyclist would have been able to slip past.

It happens often.

arcon5

brat wrote: »

This incident may not have played out as Strider described, but it is one of the most common reasons for having to brake sharply on a bike. Car driver overtakes cyclist having not looked far enough ahead, realises s/he shouldn't have overtaken and brakes for a hazard that the cyclist would have been able to slip past.

It happens often.

So lets assume from now on, unless proven otherwise, that any collission involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle is the result of the driver of the motor vehicle acting like an idiot.
Get real!
Striders post was presumpious and outright ridiculous. In fact it went beyond presumpious - he seems to have written out the whole scenario!

Johno100

arcon5 wrote: »

So lets assume from now on, unless proven otherwise, that any collission involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle is the result of the driver of the motor vehicle acting like an idiot.
Get real!

Well many cycling advocates are pushing for Presumed/Strict Liability where that will be the position in civil law.

Strider590

Its rare I even get on a bike these days, but even from a drivers point of view I've seen some shockingly poor driving and the occasion dangerous driving aimed towards a cyclist that is riding perfectly legally.

OnanTheBarbarian

Police records do not feed into the insurance database systems such as CUE etc, so no chance your insurers finding out merely from the report made to the feds.

The actions of the cyclist suggest he ain't going to claim and it is unlikely he has your reg number etc, so chance of him popping out the woodwork soon seem very remote, so it sounds like this matter would remain off the radar of insurers unless you report it to them.

As far as level it would affect your premiums, crystal ball is in for a service at the moment. You could do dummy quotes (not in your own name) using details declaring and then not declaring the "incident" to get an idea.