Best way to identify a cyclist

Nasqueron

ThorOdinson said:

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.

The bit in bold is in the ideal world but in reality, isn't true, plenty of people drive without a licence, on a suspended licence, don't retake after a ban etc and the punishments are really soft e.g. banning a driver for X years when they already don't have a licence doesn't stop them driving

BikingBud

ThorOdinson said:

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.

Here we go changing the story again!

Just to remind you: 4 September at 10:35PM

I passed him earlier, giving plenty of room. He was talking on his phone at the time, so I made sure to leave extra space in case he did something stupid. Indicated and pulled around him, as the car in front did moments before.

So good job you're not giving evidence in court, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and all that stuff. I can see the headline now:

Befuddled and confused elderly driver overtakes and then brakes abruptly in front of cyclist leading to wholly avoidable collision

It might not be his fault if you overtook needlessly and then pulled up abruptly in front of him. 

See the video linked above, car driver do it all the time. Please share your video so we can actually see what occurred.

You're digging an even deeper hole every time you comment. You should have given up on Page 1!

sheramber

Herzlos said:

PocketWatchMan said:

MacPingu1986 I disagree totally that some form of licencing for cyclists would only provide 'marginal' benefits; in the last year alone I have been made aware of two fatalities in my area as a result of cyclists manically veering onto pavements and knocking people down. 

Herzlos no shortage of police. Just ask the couple who criticised something that happened in their child's school in a whatsapp message; they were faced with 4 police vehicles and 6 officers who stormed their house. the crime in question was, being critical of a school.

Do you have links for either of those?

There are certainly some police available, but you rarely see them out and about where they'd normally be stopping dangerous drivers and riders. Higher visibility is also likely to result in less people driving (or riding) whilst distracted. Given that it's been illegal for driving using a mobile phone for years now, the only reason so many people still do it is that there's almost no risk of being caught.

Edit: this is the whatsapp one? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-arrest-school-whatsapp-complained-cowley-hill-b2723751.html
Because it sounds like they were already banned from visiting and communicating with the school except for via email due to existing harassment. It wasn't just a case of being critical of the school in whatsapp. If that's all it was I'd be typing from jail too.

But, did it warrant 6 police officers to attend?

booneruk

We can all find issue with deployment of the police force, and we don't have all the information. 2 aggrieved people kicking off can take a lot of subduing.

Also, do we really need idiots shouting at hotels requiring policing at the cost of many millions of pounds?

Herzlos

ThorOdinson said:

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.

In theory, sure. But then I see drivers well below test standard constantly, so it's not quite the same in practice. 

Having cyclists pass some basic competency/roadcraft assessment would be great, but as we've done to death with registrations, the cost to do so drastically outweighs the effort given that cyclists cause almost no damage. Your £2000 is a wild outlier. 

I assume they still do cycling proficiency in schools?

ThorOdinson

silverwhistle said:

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....

This is just bizarre and clueless.

ThorOdinson

Can we get this deleted? I've had enough of the abuse.

Emmia

ThorOdinson said:

Can we get this deleted? I've had enough of the abuse.

If you disengage (you can also mute the thread so you don't get notifications of responses, which will help) it will stop attracting replies to your posts and will slide down the boards into near oblivion.

However, for posterity, I'm going to quote your original post as no one else seems to have done this.

ThorOdinson said:

A cyclist hit my car and ran off without giving me his details. My dashcam caught it all, including a clear shot of his face a moment before it smashed into my rear window and damaged the wiper. The bike damaged the bumper and cracked my number plate.

What's the best way to track him down so I can claim my costs? It was entirely his fault, I was stationary at the lights, he was looking at his phone.

Wyndham

ThorOdinson said:

Can we get this deleted? I've had enough of the abuse.

I'm pretty fed up of your anit-cyclist retoric. There are good cyclists and bad ones, I don't dispute that, but as one of the good ones I have a tale or two about drivers! But again, there are both good ones and bad ones.

However, I do believe in free speech, have not seen abuse on this thread (only disagreement) and hope it does not get deleted.

ThorOdinson

Wyndham said:

ThorOdinson said:

Can we get this deleted? I've had enough of the abuse.

I'm pretty fed up of your anit-cyclist retoric. There are good cyclists and bad ones, I don't dispute that, but as one of the good ones I have a tale or two about drivers! But again, there are both good ones and bad ones.

However, I do believe in free speech, have not seen abuse on this thread (only disagreement) and hope it does not get deleted.

There is no rhetoric except form your side. There are so many bad cyclists and it's so hard to do anything about them. That's the only issue.