Cyclist rear ended me

brat

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

What are you finding so hard to understand about my comment?
For the third and final time, what I stated was that would a driver overtake a cyclist and cause an accident and then go to the police to report what had happened?

By distorting (and by that I mean actually editing an earlier post by cutting parts off and ending the quoted sentence early), you have in my opinion, lost all credibility on here.

If the motorist thought he had done no wrong, he might. I usually can't be @rsed confronting the motorists who do this, life is too short, but I've raised a hand in frustration more than once which has occasionally sparked a conversation, and it's surprising just how much they will deny the mistake they just made. Usually they will accuse me of coming too fast towards them when they were pulling out of a side street, or going too fast when they were trying to overtake. :think:

Strider590

brat wrote: »

If the motorist thought he had done no wrong, he might. I usually can't be @rsed confronting the motorists who do this, life is too short, but I've raised a hand in frustration more than once which has occasionally sparked a conversation, and it's surprising just how much they will deny the mistake they just made. Usually they will accuse me of coming too fast towards them when they were pulling out of a side street, or going too fast when they were trying to overtake. :think:

It's car v bike superiority illusion. if they did the same thing in front of a truck, they'd probably not bother to argue.

RichardD1970

Strider590 wrote: »

What evidence?
The only counter argument I've seen has come from a purely anti-cyclist point of view..... So I feel someone has to be here to redress the balance.

What, like mine?

If you bothered to check my posting history with regards cycling/motorist, you will find I am in no way anti-cyclist, in fact quite the opposite.

You asked and I pointed out a scenario where the cyclist could very well have been in the wrong, a position which you would appear to find absolutely inconceivable judging by your posts where you automatically assume that the car driver was in the wrong regardless.

Angelo2015

brat wrote: »

My initial thoughts here were that the cyclist has been too close behind the car, which in turn has braked sharply for the crossing. Fault clearly lies with the cyclist, but the cyclist may have been (unjustifiably) angry because the car driver braked quickly.

The overtaking then braking scenario is a possible explanation too; it would offer a reason why the cyclist shouted at the driver. It's also the most common reason why I have to undertake unplanned braking. But I think it probably didn't happen in this incident.

This is exactly what happened. He was angry at me because he thought, and I quote braked 'really quickly'. I did in fact brake quite sharply, but by no means enough to even lock my seat belt. For one- I wasn't going anymore than 15-18 mph and had an ok stopping distance to the crossing and secondly I did not overtake him, nor block access to my left (should he wish to undertake me at the stopping and go through the red himself) which is the rear side he hit me. His mountain bike was pretty aged, and he wasn't wearing a helmet in central London Friday rush hour so suggests to me his attitude to road safety was pretty relaxed. Which flips me off beyond belief, because should he have cracked his head, fault or no fault I'd be in a world of pain right now!
Cheers all for the comments and perspectives. My nerves are pretty shot and I'm driving like a learner at the moment which in London seems to be causing me more problems than before!

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I wouldn't care to apportion blame without hearing both sides, but a badly maintained bike can have very poor brakes (some of the Halford's mechanical disc brakes simply do not stop bikes due to the pads becoming polished or oily from road grime, for example). On the other hand some mountain bikes can send you over the handlebars in an emergency stop because the brakes are so powerful, whether disc or v-brake.

I would tend to go with the same principle as with a motorist rear ending, if you are so close to a vehicle in front that you cannot stop then you are too close, with the caveat that an awful lot of motorists simply do not think properly about passing bikes and cut in (often when they have misjudged the overtake which then magically becomes the cyclist's fault).

Lots of cyclists filter in London and believe they have a right to do so - filtering is permitted, but has to be done with care, recognising that cyclists are difficult to see, and plenty of SMIDSYs (Sorry, mate, didn't see you) are provoked by poor cycle positioning and filtering.

brat

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Lots of cyclists filter in London and believe they have a right to do so - filtering is permitted, but has to be done with care, recognising that cyclists are difficult to see, and plenty of SMIDSYs (Sorry, mate, didn't see you) are provoked by poor cycle positioning and filtering.

Filtering or lane splitting to pass slow or stationary traffic is something car drivers do almost every time they pass a cyclist. They therefore need to take the same degree of care and consideration they would expect of all filterers, ie leave plenty of room, reduce your differential speed relative to the passing gap, and overtake carefully.

Strider590

brat wrote: »

Filtering or lane splitting to pass slow or stationary traffic is something car drivers do almost every time they pass a cyclist. They therefore need to take the same degree of care and consideration they would expect of all filterers, ie leave plenty of room, reduce your differential speed relative to the passing gap, and overtake carefully.

I thought drivers were supposed to pass closely, use the horn when possible, cut in sharpy and assist the cyclist in testing their brakes.

:rotfl:

facade

Strider590 wrote: »

I thought drivers were supposed to pass closely, use the horn when possible, cut in sharpy and assist the cyclist in testing their brakes.

:rotfl:

That is just for when you pass horses.

In The Olden Days you could flick the ignition off but keep it in gear, so the exhaust fills with fuel vapour, then just as you pass them- on with the ignition, and the fuel in the exhaust ignites with a most satisfying bang.

Always amused the rider that one

Johno100

facade wrote: »

That is just for when you pass horses.

In The Olden Days you could flick the ignition off but keep it in gear, so the exhaust fills with fuel vapour, then just as you pass them- on with the ignition, and the fuel in the exhaust ignites with a most satisfying bang.

Always amused the rider that one

Olden days? 3,500 revs in 3rd gear and then either change up or lift off in my Focus and it will pop and bang like anything. It did it going past one old dear and I thought she was going to dive into the nearest hedge.:rotfl: