Best way to identify a cyclist

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

Somewhere around 4% of drivers are thought to be uninsured, but they cause a larger than expected percentage of accidents. I don't think there's figures for cars with bad plates, unregistered addresses etc. 

As SW pointed out, being rear ended by an inattentive driver doesn't mean you'll catch them or get a resolution. 

You also managed to dodge my point about what will happen if rear ended by a car who's been driven by someone on a phone. I'd be pretty confident the damage would be more than a wiper mechanism. The cyclists damage was likely less than your insurance excesss and certainly less than your insurance premium hikes than if it had been a driver.  That's before you factor in stuff like whiplash and orders of magnitude more damage. 

It seems like you've got quite an axe to grind about cyclists in general though.

What does the cost of fixing it matter if it's not your fault? Their insurance pays for it, and you add the price hikes to the claim.

What a strange argument anyway. You are arguing that an idiot looking at their phone is less of a problem on a bike. Okay, but so what? Either way they are a dangerous idiot that should not be on the road. He's done it twice now and the second time he seriously injured someone. He'll probably do it again.

ThorOdinson

silverwhistle said:

BikingBud said:

The only confusing thing is your smoke screen and persistent attitude that allows you to consider that one poor cyclist defines all cyclists and the complete lack of any self awareness.

Thank you BB for saving me so much typing..

I notice he never replies to your specific points on procedure and timing, and the assumptions throughout are amazing - "probably crash it into someone else".

They really are using a hammer to rack a nut, and they're certainly no Loki Silvertongue..

Because I've explained it and he didn't listen. He really wants to blame me for some reason. I suppose it's my fault that this guy hit that woman too.

He's one of those cyclists who seems to think it's always someone else's fault.

bouicca21

Really? Video would have been better than two eye witnesses who saw the whole thing?!

Emmia

bouicca21 said:

Really? Video would have been better than two eye witnesses who saw the whole thing?!

Memories and recollection of incidents by humans are imperfect, there's plenty of evidence for this.

 Video is also not ideal as it can come from one perspective only, but does have the advantage of being able to be perfectly replayed multiple times to show the same thing 

Wyndham

15 pages and 6 months. Does MSE give out awards for this sort of thing? 

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

Somewhere around 4% of drivers are thought to be uninsured, but they cause a larger than expected percentage of accidents. I don't think there's figures for cars with bad plates, unregistered addresses etc. 

As SW pointed out, being rear ended by an inattentive driver doesn't mean you'll catch them or get a resolution. 

You also managed to dodge my point about what will happen if rear ended by a car who's been driven by someone on a phone. I'd be pretty confident the damage would be more than a wiper mechanism. The cyclists damage was likely less than your insurance excesss and certainly less than your insurance premium hikes than if it had been a driver.  That's before you factor in stuff like whiplash and orders of magnitude more damage. 

It seems like you've got quite an axe to grind about cyclists in general though.

What does the cost of fixing it matter if it's not your fault? Their insurance pays for it, and you add the price hikes to the claim.

What a strange argument anyway. You are arguing that an idiot looking at their phone is less of a problem on a bike. Okay, but so what? Either way they are a dangerous idiot that should not be on the road. He's done it twice now and the second time he seriously injured someone. He'll probably do it again.

I don't think you're understanding the points being made here. 

Both would be a problem and both should be banned from the roads. But the damage done by the cyclist is significantly lower than the car, and it's significantly rarer too. I'm not going back through the thread but if I recall correctly the cyclists damage was a rear wiper costing about £400. If you got rear ended by a car you could be looking at a total write off if the frame gets bent. Throw in courtesy cars and so on and you could easily get to a £40,000 claim, at least doubling it if there was any injury. 

In the 2nd incident, if it was a car the woman would probably be dead. Again, this cyclist seems dangerous and should face some significant penalty, but that's not really any excuse for the tired old anti cyclist stuff. 

I know I'd much rather get rear ended by an inattentive cyclist than an inattentive driver. 

You're also assuming that if rear ended by a car, you'd be able to reclaim the full costs and insurance increases going forward, which isn't true. Even if you did get fully compensated it could take years. 

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

silverwhistle said:

BikingBud said:

The only confusing thing is your smoke screen and persistent attitude that allows you to consider that one poor cyclist defines all cyclists and the complete lack of any self awareness.

Thank you BB for saving me so much typing..

I notice he never replies to your specific points on procedure and timing, and the assumptions throughout are amazing - "probably crash it into someone else".

They really are using a hammer to rack a nut, and they're certainly no Loki Silvertongue..

Because I've explained it and he didn't listen. He really wants to blame me for some reason. I suppose it's my fault that this guy hit that woman too.

He's one of those cyclists who seems to think it's always someone else's fault.

He's pointing out that from your version of events, you as an attentive driver, must have had some indication that this was going to happen. You went from behind an inattentive cyclist to in front of an inattentive cyclist and then surprised they continued on their current trajectory into where you moved to. 

No-one is commenting on the completely unrelated other incident, stop being silly. 

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

Herzlos said:

Somewhere around 4% of drivers are thought to be uninsured, but they cause a larger than expected percentage of accidents. I don't think there's figures for cars with bad plates, unregistered addresses etc. 

As SW pointed out, being rear ended by an inattentive driver doesn't mean you'll catch them or get a resolution. 

You also managed to dodge my point about what will happen if rear ended by a car who's been driven by someone on a phone. I'd be pretty confident the damage would be more than a wiper mechanism. The cyclists damage was likely less than your insurance excesss and certainly less than your insurance premium hikes than if it had been a driver.  That's before you factor in stuff like whiplash and orders of magnitude more damage. 

It seems like you've got quite an axe to grind about cyclists in general though.

What does the cost of fixing it matter if it's not your fault? Their insurance pays for it, and you add the price hikes to the claim.

What a strange argument anyway. You are arguing that an idiot looking at their phone is less of a problem on a bike. Okay, but so what? Either way they are a dangerous idiot that should not be on the road. He's done it twice now and the second time he seriously injured someone. He'll probably do it again.

I don't think you're understanding the points being made here. 

Both would be a problem and both should be banned from the roads. But the damage done by the cyclist is significantly lower than the car, and it's significantly rarer too. I'm not going back through the thread but if I recall correctly the cyclists damage was a rear wiper costing about £400. If you got rear ended by a car you could be looking at a total write off if the frame gets bent. Throw in courtesy cars and so on and you could easily get to a £40,000 claim, at least doubling it if there was any injury. 

In the 2nd incident, if it was a car the woman would probably be dead. Again, this cyclist seems dangerous and should face some significant penalty, but that's not really any excuse for the tired old anti cyclist stuff. 

I know I'd much rather get rear ended by an inattentive cyclist than an inattentive driver. 

You're also assuming that if rear ended by a car, you'd be able to reclaim the full costs and insurance increases going forward, which isn't true. Even if you did get fully compensated it could take years. 

Damage to the car was £2,000 to put right. Yes it could have been worse if he was driving a car. But to drive a car you need to pass a test, and if you are reckless your licence can be taken away.

So yes, it's proportional to the harm, but the point you seem to be missing is that for cyclists there is no proportion at all. If it wasn't for luck and me making an extraordinary effort to hold this guy responsible, he would at most have had to replace his bent wheel.

A couple of grand and a serious injury are not nothing. The fact that they could have been worse is irrelevant, it's about the almost total lack of repercussions for the injuries he did do. I haven't heard from the other victim for a while so I don't know if she is getting compensated, but I have a feeling he doesn't have the money to put it right anyway. That's why drivers have insurance, and clearly he needs it because even if he didn't kill her, he did enough damage that he can't afford to put it right. Or as right as these injuries can ever be made.

ThorOdinson

Herzlos said:

ThorOdinson said:

silverwhistle said:

BikingBud said:

The only confusing thing is your smoke screen and persistent attitude that allows you to consider that one poor cyclist defines all cyclists and the complete lack of any self awareness.

Thank you BB for saving me so much typing..

I notice he never replies to your specific points on procedure and timing, and the assumptions throughout are amazing - "probably crash it into someone else".

They really are using a hammer to rack a nut, and they're certainly no Loki Silvertongue..

Because I've explained it and he didn't listen. He really wants to blame me for some reason. I suppose it's my fault that this guy hit that woman too.

He's one of those cyclists who seems to think it's always someone else's fault.

He's pointing out that from your version of events, you as an attentive driver, must have had some indication that this was going to happen. You went from behind an inattentive cyclist to in front of an inattentive cyclist and then surprised they continued on their current trajectory into where you moved to. 

No-one is commenting on the completely unrelated other incident, stop being silly. 

He does not appear to have been looking at his phone as I passed him. I couldn't see him using the phone in my mirrors until it was too late, or I'd have used my horn.

None of which matters. He hit a stationary object. 100% his fault, his liability.

silverwhistle

ThorOdinson said:

None of which matters. He hit a stationary object. 100% his fault, his liability.

I don't think anybody is disputing that.

But as you don't seem to be a particularly aware driver, can I suggest not pulling in front of an HGV on the motorway and coming to a stop in front of it? You'll be stationary, but....