Bike accident advice

SmileyPaddy

Hi

I'm new to boards.ie so i hope nobody minds me jumping staight in with a topic.

3 weeks ago I was involved in a traffic light accident. I was cycling home from work doing around 35km/hr and approached lights that were green. They then changed amber and I made the decision it was safer to go on as the roads were wet. I probably just crossed after they went red( I never normally would break a redlight). Then to make the story short, I heard a car accelarate loudly on my right and I smashed into the side of him. My left shoulder took all the impact as I knocked in his rear panel over the back wheel. The driver got out and as I lay on the road started shouting he had a green light and never asked was I okay. After talking for 10 mins ( i think i was in a bit of shock and handled the whole thing badly) he had my name, address and telephone and said he was going to get a mechanic to look at his car and would contact me about damages. I did ask him to call the garda but he dismissed that, I also feared that would get me in more trouble, wish I had rang them now.

So now he's been ringing looking for +1000 euro plus for damages to his car. Its 11 years old and on autotrader its not worth even that.

After today's incidents I guess i'm really lucky not to be injured or worse.

A lot of people here have given very good advice on various topics since i started looking a few months ago so I 'm hoping for some help.

1. I can't even afford to pay 100 euro not over 1000.
2. Am I fully responsibly or should he have checked right and then moved off even though he claimed his light had turned green.
3. If i say i'll deal with his insurance company only could that turn out worse for me.

Thanks, used to commute by bike everyday but I find myself taking the car more and more...

DirkVoodoo

I know it sounds a bit harsh and I'm glad to hear you're ok, but when driving or cycling you should always approach a junction at a speed that allows you to brake safely, even more so in wet weather. A bike will take a lot longer to clear a junction than a car, bt even so that driver should have looked before heading off.

I can't comment on the car (parts and labour may be worth more than a second hand car, it happens).

It sounds like a case of 50/50 blame. Maybe talk to the gardai/solicitor and see what they say. I don't think boards is the best place to seek legal counsel in such matters.

Stay safe!

mikemac

1. Admit nothing
2. Don't even talk to this guy, from now all communication is by letters
3. Let him go through insurance
4. He's chancing his arm. You were wrong and will take a financial hit here but unlikely to be 1k

Good luck
And in future, always report to the gardai.
I'm not saying they will call out to every accident, they have more important things to be doing. But you can surely get to the nearest station.
You own a car so you should know this even better then most cyclists. Look at your insurance booklet, it will say to report accidents to the gardai to the nearest station.

Planet X

If he was coming from behind you, he should have seen you and taken due care not to cut you up, dangerous driving. You could take him for repairs to your bike!

Does he have witnesses?
If no witnesses, tell him to go whistle.

Planet X

No Garda report.
You've no problem.

Planet X

So, that's OK for a car to run you down then?

short circuit

As someone else said ...
1. Do everything by letter ... not over phone
2. DO NOT ADMIT ANY WRONGDOING ... even if you did when you were lying on the ground ... DON'T DO IT AGAIN
3. Ask for the drivers car reg, address and insurance details and mention that you've a claim for your bike & injuries ..... in most cases that should stop him
4. If not ask him to come through the insurance company .. if there is no witnesses, its your word against his ...
5. If it goes beyond this ... get legal advice ... and not of the boards variety...

Finally ... as Dirk said ... let this be a lesson .. you are a piece of meat on a metal/carbon stick.

mmclo

mikemac wrote: »

I think you need to read Post 1 again
The OP broke a red light and was hit by a car at the junction that had a green light

Oh, welcome to boards SmileyPaddy

Thought he said he went through on orange and it changed as he went through the junction. It would take another 5 secs for the other light to go green and that's when the car should start to move

From the description I'd say 50/50 (cyclist for going at speed through when caution should have prevailed and similar for driver) so both parties responsible for their own repairs

IM0

lesson:

It is illegal to leave the scene of an accident if requested to stay, so when he said he was off if you knew your rights you would have kept him there.
Did you get his reg at least in all this? or pho no?
something tells me if you knew you were not at all to blame then you would have called the cops?

from what your sayin it sounds like the guy knew the junction well and pre empted the light change, so he might have gone too early.
Go to a solicitor, tell them your story and they will advise you on the best action (the consultation will prob be free so no harm to get a little wise on the situation and decide what you want to do next)

Morgan

Planet X wrote: »

So, that's OK for a car to run you down then?

I believe it was he who ran down the car.

Lumen

The most important thing is that you're alive with no permanent injuries. Happy days!

From your description, it sounds like you jumped a red at a crossroads (rather than a T-junction). You approached a crossroads with a "stale green" at 35kph on a bike in the wet, and then rode through the amber and red without checking to your right. This is just suicidal behaviour.

Even with a green light in the dry, you should be checking for cross-traffic, so should never get surprised by this (Flickerx can testify to the consequences of relying on other people respecting their reds).

Therefore, don't stop cycling. You make a mistake/exercised poor judgement, which needn't happen again, 'cos you can ride more safely now having learned the lesson (sorry if that sounds patronising, not meant that way).

None of that necessarily excuses the driver for his part in this, but you don't really know what he was able to see.

I'd call your own car insurance company, and ask them what the procedure/liability is in this situation. It isn't relevant to your car cover, but you're their customer so they may be helpful.

If it was your fault, the fact that his car was cheap makes little difference to the fact that you rode into it. If he has to make a claim, he may get a pittance for it and lose his no claims bonus.

SmileyPaddy

hi guys

Thanks for all the comments. I have learned my lesson from this about speed alright. I guess when you get out of work you have a lot of energy some days and i should'nt have been going at that speed. And all thats said here has not been too harsh...

If he contacts me again i'll go to get legal advice and then i'll deal with the consequences:(

Back cycling today and everyday from now on.

Cheers

Danbo!

Something to note also. The gardai say they will only attend the scene of an accident involving a bike if someone in injured I took a nasty hit a few months back and because there was serious damage done to the bike, I wanted to get the gardai involved. The driver had no problem with this. When they arrived, they seemed pissed off about being there, waste of time kinda thing.

So if nobody is injured, they may take their time getting to the scene, don't give up and leave though. Remember if nobody is injured there is no problem waiting half an hour or whatever, can be worth it in the long run.

penexpers

Last time I checked, a green light meant proceed only if safe to do so. I would say 50/50 blame is appropiate here.

BeerNut

noblestee wrote: »

The gardai say they will only attend the scene of an accident involving a bike if someone in injured

Which isn't at all to say they always will. When my wife was hospitalised by a van, not far from Store Street, they didn't bother. The upshot was the driver couldn't be charged with dangerous driving, only careless driving.

liamo

While it seems as if the OP may have broken a red light (or, at the very least, was playing the amber-gambler game) - there is also a responsiblity on the car to check the junction before pulling off. When traffic lights turn green this means "Proceed, if safe to do so.". I'm not defending the (unwise, in my opinion) manner in which the OP crossed the junction, but there may be shared responsibility here and it may be worth seeking legal advice.

Regards,

Liam

Edit : Oops. Missed penexpers similar post about "Proceed, if safe to do so".

tomc

If he says the car will cost X to get fixed, you are entitled to get him to go to a garage of your choice to get a quote. He is not entitled to get the damage fixed until liability/costs have been agreed.
Insurance route sounds like it would yield best results.

Tomc

seamus

I'd say that the blame is easily 50/50 in this case. I'm not going to go on about what you should or shouldn't have done. That's obvious.

Two main things:

1. Where an accident occurs and someone has been injured, you are legally obliged to file a report with the Gardai. This may also include an obligation to ring the Gardai from the scene of the accident and wait until they arrive, I'm not 100% sure. You say that you were lying on the ground and your shoulder took the brunt of it, so I'm guessing that you were injured, even if you never attended a doctor. If this is the case, report the accident to a Garda station.

2. Even though he "had a green light", as has been pointed out, green means, "You may go provided that it is safe to do so". The other driver failed to ensure that the junction was clear before he proceeded. Red light or not, you had control of the junction at the time that the collision occured.

I would strongly recommend filing a report with the Gardai in any case. Give them your side of the story, stick to the facts, and be honest. Being on the bike, you're protected from any penalty points or driving bans if the Gardai choose to do anything about it.
When the other guy contacts you again, give the number of the Garda station and the Garda's name and ask him to contact that Garda to file his own report before you will deal with him any further.

If he does that, then go the insurance route. If he doesn't do that and he bothers trying to take you to court, then the fact that you filed an honest report with the Gardai will look far better thhan his refusal to do so.

TimAllen

penexpers wrote: »

Last time I checked, a green light meant proceed only if safe to do so. I would say 50/50 blame is appropiate here.

It would seem that the OP is 100% at fault by his own version of events as follows:
1. He estimates he was doing 35kph in wet conditions coming up to a junction. It a reasonable assumption that this is an inappropriate speed (2 second rule and all that)
2. He sees the lights go amber and assumes they are red when passing through the junction. Its an offence to pass an amber light as well as a red light.
3. He collides with the car, T-Boning it. Simple rule of thumb if this was a 50:50 situation (which this is not, for the reasons outlined above). The vehicle that impacts on the side of the other vehicle is normally held liable.
4. Some posters have speculated that the driver pre-empted a green light but, on balance, by the OP's own admission (that the lights were probably red for him while crossing the junction) its likely that the car had a green.

The issue here is not liability but ability to pay compensation to the motorist for damage done. As a driver who recently incurred damage inflicted by a cyclist, I can empathise with the driver - although I didnt seek compensation for my damage, this driver is within his rights if damage has been caused.
I would suggest trying to reach a fair compromise with the driver regarding the damage. In the coold light of day he might just accept a token payment if his car is old and the damage is not serious.

BeerNut

TimAllen wrote: »

Its an offence to pass an amber light as well as a red light.

If that were true there would only be red and green lights. You can go through an amber if stopping would be unsafe (RotR p.83), which the OP decided it was. However, on the same page it says "You should always approach traffic lights at a speed that will allow you to stop if the amber light appears", which does not seem to have been the case here.

Mr. Presentable

mikemac wrote: »

I think you need to read Post 1 again
The OP broke a red light and was hit by a car at the junction that had a green light

Oh, welcome to boards SmileyPaddy

Please, people, read the OP. He ran a red and hit the side of a car! The car did not hit him.

As regards the damage, that's between them, but the OP is completely in the wrong here. Sorry, OP, I know it's not what you want, but another cyclist ran a red yesterday and didn't have such a fortunate outcome.

TimAllen

BeerNut wrote: »

If that were true there would only be red and green lights. You can go through an amber if stopping would be unsafe (RotR p.83), which the OP decided it was. However, on the same page it says "You should always approach traffic lights at a speed that will allow you to stop if the amber light appears", which does not seem to have been the case here.

The amber is there to tell u to slow down and stop in anticipation of the red. You will get prosecuted for deciding to travel though an amber - the point you made relates to a situation where (especially in slow moving traffic) you have already entered the junction and it is then safer to continue through it than stop and block it. In any case its of no relevance to the situation as described by the OP

Mr. Presentable

liamo wrote: »

While it seems as if the OP may have broken a red light (or, at the very least, was playing the amber-gambler game) - there is also a responsiblity on the car to check the junction before pulling off. When traffic lights turn green this means "Proceed, if safe to do so.". I'm not defending the (unwise, in my opinion) manner in which the OP crossed the junction, but there may be shared responsibility here and it may be worth seeking legal advice.

Regards,

Liam

Edit : Oops. Missed penexpers similar post about "Proceed, if safe to do so".

The thing is, if the motorist had a green and the cyclist ran a red, at the time he moved off there would have been nothing else in the junction,.

seamus

nipplenuts wrote: »

Please, people, read the OP. He ran a red and hit the side of a car! The car did not hit him.

Which, in a lot of cases, puts the "hitter" in the wrong.

However, the huge speed disparity has to be taken into account between the two vehicles. It's completely possible at a number of junctions for a slow-moving cyclist to enter the junction when the light is green and have the lights go red before they are halfway across the junction. In that case, a car that's quick to take off from the other lights, could get in front of the cyclist and the cyclist runs into the side of him.

In this case, yes he shouldn't have entered the junction, but from his description he had entered the junction before the other driver had the green light. Therefore the other driver should not have proceeded through the junction unless he was sure that there was no other traffic already "in control" of the junction. He failed to yield to traffic which had a higher priority.

TimAllen

seamus wrote: »

Which, in a lot of cases, puts the "hitter" in the wrong.

However, the huge speed disparity has to be taken into account between the two vehicles. It's completely possible at a number of junctions for a slow-moving cyclist to enter the junction when the light is green and have the lights go red before they are halfway across the junction. In that case, a car that's quick to take off from the other lights, could get in front of the cyclist and the cyclist runs into the side of him.

In this case, yes he shouldn't have entered the junction, but from his description he had entered the junction before the other driver had the green light. Therefore the other driver should not have proceeded through the junction unless he was sure that there was no other traffic already "in control" of the junction. He failed to yield to traffic which had a higher priority.

This might be relevant if the car hit the cyclist but, as per the OP, teh cyclist hit the side of the car. A reasonable assumption here is that, the cyclist ran a red light (by his own admission) and ran straight into a car which had control of the junction (by virtue of a green light and also the fact that the cyclist collided with the car means that the car was at the point of collission BEFORE the cyclist who estimates he was doing 35kph!!!)

SmileyPaddy

I'm fully aware of how lucky I was! From the responses here about half think its a 50/50 incident maybe the other think I'm 100% to blame. Thats why my head is wrecked from this, sometimes I think its all my fault then someone else convinces me to see it another way.

I have no problem paying for damages or partial damages if i am held as fully responsible. I have put myself in the car drivers place too and am trying to do what i would hope a cyclist would do if roles are reversed.

Thanks for taking the time share your points of view.

I'll seek legal advice and go from there.

TimAllen

SmileyPaddy wrote: »

I'm fully aware of how lucky I was! From the responses here about half think its a 50/50 incident maybe the other think I'm 100% to blame. Thats why my head is wrecked from this, sometimes I think its all my fault then someone else convinces me to see it another way.

I have no problem paying for damages or partial damages if i am held as fully responsible. I have put myself in the car drivers place too and am trying to do what i would hope a cyclist would do if roles are reversed.

Thanks for taking the time share your points of view.

I'll seek legal advice and go from there.

Just wondering, after reading the debate and varying points of view, what is your own opinion now regarding your responsibility for the collision?

seamus

TimAllen wrote: »

This might be relevant if the car hit the cyclist but, as per the OP, teh cyclist hit the side of the car.

Which usually indicates who had control of the junction, except as I point out in cases of a huge speed disparity.

A reasonable assumption here is that, the cyclist ran a red light (by his own admission)

Edit: I misread his post. Which significantly weakens the liklihood of it being 50:50.

and ran straight into a car which had control of the junction (by virtue of a green light

The other car only had control of the junction if the other light was green *before* the OP entered it. If the other vehicle had a red light at the time that the OP entered the junction, then the OP had control of the junction.

and also the fact that the cyclist collided with the car means that the car was at the point of collission BEFORE the cyclist who estimates he was doing 35kph!!!)

That depends on the junction though. Plenty of junctions are disproportionately long . Take the O'Connell Bridge south junction as an example. It's easily 40m long if you're going down the quays, but only about 10m wide if you're crossing onto the bridge.

Someone moving 35km/h on the quays would take about 4 seconds to cross the junction, whereas someone doing the same speed up westmoreland st will get across onto the bridge in about 1 second - ample time for a vehicle to pull out in front of a bike.

TimAllen

seamus wrote: »

Which usually indicates who had control of the junction, except as I point out in cases of a huge speed disparity.
Edit: I misread his post. Which significantly weakens the liklihood of it being 50:50. The other car only had control of the junction if the other light was green *before* the OP entered it. If the other vehicle had a red light at the time that the OP entered the junction, then the OP had control of the junction. That depends on the junction though. Plenty of junctions are disproportionately long . Take the O'Connell Bridge south junction as an example. It's easily 40m long if you're going down the quays, but only about 10m wide if you're crossing onto the bridge.

Someone moving 35km/h on the quays would take about 4 seconds to cross the junction, whereas someone doing the same speed up westmoreland st will get across onto the bridge in about 1 second - ample time for a vehicle to pull out in front of a bike.

Well anyone deciding to jump a red on a bicycle along that junction at the quays would be certifiable and should be sectioned to a mental institution for deliberate attempted self harm!
The longer the junction just makes it even more irresponsible to jump a red light. In fact, I can believe anyone trying to justify it or apportion blame to another road user in such circumstances.

Ryaner

One of the junctions I cross on my way to work is long enough that I can pass a green light and have the far side on my left turn green before I go through unless I go fast enough. The far left lane is a left turn only filter lane merging into the lane I'd be cycling in and their view would be blocked generally by buses/trucks turning left to the road I came from.

Sleipnir

SmileyPaddy wrote: »

I'm fully aware of how lucky I was! From the responses here about half think its a 50/50 incident maybe the other think I'm 100% to blame. Thats why my head is wrecked from this, sometimes I think its all my fault then someone else convinces me to see it another way.

I have no problem paying for damages or partial damages if i am held as fully responsible. I have put myself in the car drivers place too and am trying to do what i would hope a cyclist would do if roles are reversed.

Thanks for taking the time share your points of view.

I'll seek legal advice and go from there.

Does he have witnesses? Did you see him taking down the names and addresses of anyone? If not, it's your word against his. You can say that he broke the red light.
What will the Gardai do in that case? If he wanted money he should have insisted on calling the gardai. Did you get his reg, insurance etc?

Tell him your not paying and if he starts getting hysterical tell him you'll deal with his insurance company. If he's not on for that, tell him you're going to make a report to the Gardai. If he gets more "hysterical" tell him you feel that you're being threatened and you're going to report that to the Gardai also.

If his car is that crappy he won't want to claim off his insurance. He's just out to bully you into giving him some cash.

DirkVoodoo

@Tim Allen - I think you really need to take the relative speeds into account here, otherwise you cannot make an informed decision.

35kph on a bike in the wet is far too fast a speed to approach a crossroad junction at and still expect to be able to stop safely should you need to.

I've gone through the junction of Foster's Ave. and the N11 countless times, and on plenty of occasions I have gone through a green, seen it go orange as I am crossing the junction and so more than likely be red as I cross the junction. Go down and have a look yourself, the timing of the lights is desgined for cars and does not take into account the slower speed of bikes and the longer amount of time needed to safely clear the junction. I will have plenty of cars tearing through at 60+ kph. Are they in the right because they go through an amber whereas I go through a green simply because they can clear the junction faster?

Does this mean I would be in the wrong if a car coming down from Foster's Ave. turning left onto the N11 drives into the side of me? I would hope not. I would hope the driver does not blindly follow the lights and checks to see the way is clear before proceeding.

Anyway, as i mentioned way back in this post, 50/50 blame is appropriate. The rider should have slowed down when approaching the junction so he could stop for the red light and the driver should have been more observant of traffic conditions at the junction and not simply looking to take off when he gets a green.

TimAllen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

@Tim Allen - I think you really need to take the relative speeds into account here, otherwise you cannot make an informed decision.

35kph on a bike in the wet is far too fast a speed to approach a crossroad junction at and still expect to be able to stop safely should you need to.

I've gone through the junction of Foster's Ave. and the N11 countless times, and on plenty of occasions I have gone through a green, seen it go orange as I am crossing the junction and so more than likely be red as I cross the junction. Go down and have a look yourself, the timing of the lights is desgined for cars and does not take into account the slower speed of bikes and the longer amount of time needed to safely clear the junction. I will have plenty of cars tearing through at 60+ kph. Are they in the right because they go through an amber whereas I go through a green simply because they can clear the junction faster?

Does this mean I would be in the wrong if a car coming down from Foster's Ave. turning left onto the N11 drives into the side of me? I would hope not. I would hope the driver does not blindly follow the lights and checks to see the way is clear before proceeding.

Anyway, as i mentioned way back in this post, 50/50 blame is appropriate. The rider should have slowed down when approaching the junction so he could stop for the red light and the driver should have been more observant of traffic conditions at the junction and not simply looking to take off when he gets a green.

The cyclist crashed into the car - did you get that part? Your example above involves a car crashing into the side of you - This situation involved a cyclist, breaking a red light and crashing into the side of a car. Note it was the CYCLIST who collided with teh car, not the other way around!
Absolutely 100% cyclist's fault for:
1. Running a red light
2. Going too fast, as the cyclist still had opportunity to stop before hitting the car (irrespective of the colour of the lights) and should have been travelling at a speed to be able to stop - he clearly wasnt
3. Not cycling defensively - in wet conditions extra care should be taken even if he was in the right (which he wasnt)

TimAllen

Sleipnir wrote: »

Does he have witnesses? Did you see him taking down the names and addresses of anyone? If not, it's your word against his. You can say that he broke the red light.
What will the Gardai do in that case? If he wanted money he should have insisted on calling the gardai. Did you get his reg, insurance etc?

Tell him your not paying and if he starts getting hysterical tell him you'll deal with his insurance company. If he's not on for that, tell him you're going to make a report to the Gardai. If he gets more "hysterical" tell him you feel that you're being threatened and you're going to report that to the Gardai also.

If his car is that crappy he won't want to claim off his insurance. He's just out to bully you into giving him some cash.

That is despicable, dishonest advice to give to anyone. Bad karma for anyone who would do such a thing

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

That is despicable, dishonest advice to give to anyone. Bad karma for anyone who would do such a thing

Step away from the keyboard, and breathe.....

Limestone1

TimAllen wrote: »

That is despicable, dishonest advice to give to anyone. Bad karma for anyone who would do such a thing

Nonsense - it's all he deserves after he got out of the car and started shouting at someone lying injured on the ground (after he'd just rammed them) !
OP turn it around - report him for breaking a red light and hitting you and next time he contacts you , tell him you are suing him for your injuries ....that should stop him bothering you ....or if not ,it could net you a few bob to buy a new bike ...

TimAllen

Limestone1 wrote: »

Nonsense - it's all he deserves after he got out of the car and started shouting at someone lying injured on the ground (after he'd just rammed them) !
OP turn it around - report him for breaking a red light and hitting you and next time he contacts you , tell him you are suing him for your injuries ....that should stop him bothering you ....or if not ,it could net you a few bob to buy a new bike ...

Re-read the OP before making posts advocating lies, deceit and dishonest behaviour! The bicycle crashed into the car, not the other way around.
OP, I would stick to the truth and take your medicine

tunney

TimAllen wrote: »

Re-read the OP before making posts advocating lies, deceit and dishonest behaviour! The bicycle crashed into the car, not the other way around.
OP, I would stick to the truth and take your medicine

The motorist obviously saw the OP going through the light and drove on anyways.

Deny deny deny.

SerialComplaint

tunney wrote: »

The motorist obviously saw the OP going through the light and drove on anyways.

This is extremely unlikely, unless the OP came up against a psychopath. For any motorist, the automatic reaction would be to swerve and/or brake. It's pure instinct, with no time to think. It is far more likely that the motorist never saw the OP.

DirkVoodoo

If u get a green light and you proceed without looking then you don't deserve to be driving. A green light is not a right to waive common sense. What happens when an emergency vehicle is going through a red light, do you keep going without paying attention to what is going on?

50/50, lets move on now folks!

TimAllen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If u get a green light and you proceed without looking then you don't deserve to be driving. A green light is not a right to waive common sense. What happens when an emergency vehicle is going through a red light, do you keep going without paying attention to what is going on?

50/50, lets move on now folks!

Thankfully, in real life, blame is apportioned in an unbiased and fair way.
You talk of common sense - the OP abandoned all common sense by jumping a red light on a bicycle! 100% liability for the OP, I'd love to see someone argue 50/50 in the real world - you'd be laughed out of court!

Profiler

TimAllen wrote: »

Thankfully, in real life, blame is apportioned in an unbiased and fair way.
You talk of common sense - the OP abandoned all common sense by jumping a red light on a bicycle! 100% liability for the OP, I'd love to see someone argue 50/50 in the real world - you'd be laughed out of court!

What real life do you live in? from a previous job I know of many HGV drivers who have done nothing wrong but have a Judge apportion blame 100% against them JUST because they are driving a HGV.

The fact that a cyclist breaks a red light does not give carte blanche to motorists to driver in such away that any impact with a Cyclist is not their fault.

From the car drivers behalf he approached a junction and as such he should expect other traffic and other road users (cyclist/pedestrians) so he must drive in such a manner that it gives him the best chance to avoid any collision.

It appears to me that the car driver did not see the cyclist at any point before the impact occurs.

Put that set of circumstances in front of most judges and the car driver will be ruled 100% at fault.

If I was the OP I would tell the car driver to pay his own damage and be grateful that nobody was seriously hurt.

DirkVoodoo

Tim you seem to be the one ignoring the facts here, you have gone after the cyclist 100% since your first post. He says he went through an orange, it *may* have been red when he crossed the line.

He did no go rampaging through a red light and crash into the side of a car, he was in the junction and the driver should have been more observant.

short circuit

100% bad karma to the driver in this case ... its common deceny not to shout at a person who is lying on the ground injured REGARDLESS of who is to blame .. that can come later.

This instance could very much be a case of the OP going through an amber light and the car driver driving off preempting a green for him and if the car is already so far into the junction that the OP crashed into it ... I am assuming the driver started far too early ... and hence should get a significant part of the blame.

humbert

Cyclist going at 35Kmph and the car getting there first from a standing start leaves only three possibilities.

The lights were red a little earlier than the op would suggest.

The car took off a good bit before the lights in front of him went green.

The junction was huge.

I'd say a little from A and more from B if experience is anything to go by.

OP has my sympathies. I can understand the driver being angry at the time but the OP was very nearly killed and I'd doubt the (old)car was badly damaged. I think a little compassion would have the driver leave it at that.

mmclo

short circuit wrote: »

I am assuming the driver started far too early ... and hence should get a significant part of the blame.

But we all know that when one light goes red it takes a few second for the other to go green, so the motorist could not have had a green light til the cyclist was in the junction

DirkVoodoo

I really think we would need to know the junction before we start working out what may actually have happened. Most N11 junctions seem to have very short changeover times, you will see a light go red and another go green maybe 1-mississippi 2-mississipi afterwards.

Anyways...