Knocked off bike, who's fault?

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 12:38pm

penguin88 wrote: »

Did you actually read the OP's posts? No mention of looking for cash, compensation etc, just asking was he/she at fault. The OP's question has been answered by many posters on this thread and the consensus puts you in the very vocal minority. Probably best not to imply that the OP is some class of ambulance chaser.

The old adage of where there is blame there is a claim comes to mind. He may not have asked the question, but using simple logic we all know why he is asking this particular question.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 12:42pm

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

The driver left the scene of a colision without providing his details. You belittle what happened to the OP but they could have suffered brain trauma and appeared fine at the time but ended up in a serious condition later. Luckily this was not the case, but the driver was not to know this at the time he left the scene.

could have

But didn't.

If this was the actual case and the OP did suffer this trauma (thankfully he is fine). If he get's up and leaves the scene, then it's nobody's responsibility but his own to ensure he get the correct medical attention.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 12:45pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What?

I don't get how you can say that in any way!

The car didn't indicate nor look. The cyclist had no reason to expect the car was to cross his path. A cyclist is allowed to be in that position on the road and can over take on the inside of cars.

Can't see any logical reason the cyclist is at fault.

The fact the driver left without handing over details is an additional issue.

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

AltAccount · 25-10-2013 12:57pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

Who are you to be arbiter or whether it's 50/50 or not. I'd rather the opinion of someone who took some sort of statement from both parties, from a background of legal training and law enforcement experience.

That person could then advise if the driver has some liability and possibly advise the OP whether it's worthwhile pursuing it further.

No idea where you'd find someone with these kind of investigative powers. Maybe in some sort of designated building or "station"?

Ray Palmer · 25-10-2013 1:21pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

You make it seem like the driver got out, seen his car was fine so he left. The OP didn't have the presence of mind to ask for his details. Which isn't a problem because at the end of the day its a 50/50 case really. Cant prove indicators were on or off, even harder to prove road positions when nobody stayed at the scene.

OP is fine anyway whats the point of dragging this out, only for your own personal amusement maybe.

A very weird reading of my post. Saying it is "another issue" doesn't in any way suggest what you are claiming it does.

It is one thing to say you can't prove it and a totally different thing to say that it is the cyclist fault as you have said. Without accusing the OP of lying I don't get how anybody could say it was his fault.

The OP is out of pocket so not fine

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 3:37pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A very weird reading of my post. Saying it is "another issue" doesn't in any way suggest what you are claiming it does.

It is one thing to say you can't prove it and a totally different thing to say that it is the cyclist fault as you have said. Without accusing the OP of lying I don't get how anybody could say it was his fault.

The OP is out of pocket so not fine

What about the poor guy in the car, what if his car was damaged? who's going to pay for that.....not the OP I'm guessing

Gmol · 25-10-2013 3:42pm

I wonder did the driver have road tax

beauf · 25-10-2013 3:54pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

What about the poor guy in the car, what if his car was damaged? who's going to pay for that.....not the OP I'm guessing

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 3:54pm

Gmol wrote: »

I wonder did the driver have road tax

Yes, your right. If the OP didn't check the TAX then he has really missed out. As a matter of fact I would recommend that the next times this happens to OP then he should whip out his multitool penknife and do a full NCT on the car, right there on the side of the road. You never know what info he could gain. Just pile it all into a folder along with some exacerbated medical records and post it to injury lawyers for you.........a couple of months down the line and he'll have more €€€€€€ than Bono's dog.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 3:55pm

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

It's great how their is a blanket consensus that the OP is in the right here. I wonder if we posted this in a common forum as opposed to a cycling forum what the general consensus would be then

beauf · 25-10-2013 3:58pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

It's great how their is a blanket consensus that the OP is in the right here. I wonder if we posted this in a common forum as opposed to a cycling forum what the general consensus would be then

Do that, except change both parties to car.

You're in a car and someone overtakes and turns left across you in another car.

Should you pay for their damage.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 4:00pm

beauf wrote: »

someone overtakes and turns left across you in another car.

If you hit the back quarter of their car, your fault.

That's a blanket rule for you right there. And if you got out of your car after that looked about like a gombeen and then waved the "offending" driver off, ya haven't got a hope.

Spook_ie · 25-10-2013 4:14pm

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

In the event of an accident where there is no clear cut wrong doer ( no independent witnesses ) it will often be settled on a "knock for knock" basis where each parties insurance pays for the damage to the other vehicle.

Does bring into contention if a cyclist damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist's insurance? If they indeed have any.

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

beauf · 25-10-2013 4:51pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

If you hit the back quarter of their car, your fault. ...

That sweeping generalisation is not true. Especially if you have witness's and CCTV or evidence as in skid marks or the cars position on the road to prove the other driver was at fault.

beauf · 25-10-2013 4:54pm

My edits...

Spook_ie wrote: »

...Does bring into contention if a cyclist pedestrian damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist pedestrian insurance? If they indeed have any....

I think you need to work through the variations...

Spook_ie · 25-10-2013 5:05pm

beauf wrote: »

My edits...

I think you need to work through the variations...

I would but I do know you can have specific insurance as a cyclist, not aware of anyone providing specific insurance to a pedestrian. There is a possibility that household insurance might have a clause in it covering damages to other peoples property but then not everyone has household insurance either

beauf · 25-10-2013 5:19pm

You can have Personal Accident Insurance.

Considering they dropped mandatory cyclist specific insurance (vignette) in Switzerland. Its not likely to become mandatory anywhere else. Mandatory cyclist insurance is where you usually go with this line of discussion.

Maybe you should suggest mandatory Personal Accident/liability Insurance, to cover damage caused to cars by pedestrians and cyclists hitting cars when they are knocked over.

No Pants · 25-10-2013 5:43pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

My understanding is that it also covers them while out training, but what insurance policy would pay out when you get hit by part of another vehicle being used negligently?

Open your door and hit a pedestrian? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a cyclist? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a car? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a bus? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a lorry? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.

Hmmzis · 25-10-2013 5:47pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

Back to the OP original question.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?

But go to the guards anyway and see if ya can get this guy up in court for a hit and run. It'll look great on his record. He will more than likely loose his licence, possibly job (if he needs to drive for work) and who knows what else as his insurance will be through the roof for next few millennial. you suffered, at the hands of this maniac.

Exactly, go to the guards and report it. There are far too many negligent and outright dangerous drivers out there, they destroy peoples lives on a daily basis. Please, don't allow this one to get off, it's just a matter of time before he mutilates or kills someone. He desrves every thing that gets thrown at him by the guards, insurance companies and maybe even a judge.

Spook_ie · 25-10-2013 7:14pm

beauf wrote: »

if you hit another car. Do you expect them to pay you for damaging your own car?

Spook_ie wrote: »

In the event of an accident where there is no clear cut wrong doer ( no independent witnesses ) it will often be settled on a "knock for knock" basis where each parties insurance pays for the damage to the other vehicle.

Does bring into contention if a cyclist damages a car and there is no clear cut evidence of who was in the wrong how does a motorist claim against the cyclist's insurance? If they indeed have any.

I believe that cyclists belonging to clubs have some kind of insurance but does it stretch to covering tham against covering damage to vehicles and is it operative when not on club events/races etc?

No Pants wrote: »

My understanding is that it also covers them while out training, but what insurance policy would pay out when you get hit by part of another vehicle being used negligently?

Open your door and hit a pedestrian? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a cyclist? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a car? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a bus? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.
Open your door and hit a lorry? You're at fault and no one's insurance is paying you.

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

No Pants · 25-10-2013 7:57pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

You hit someone with a door. It's not an accident, unless you're claiming that the door opened all by hitself and hit someone. Even then you'd still be liable because it's your door.

beauf · 25-10-2013 8:41pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do at least take the whole post into consideration before replying especially the bit I just emphasized for your benefit where the assumption is (as in a lot of cases ) that the burden of proof isn't there either way

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end. You can't simply open a door or pull out from the kerb into someones path with no responsibility. Taxis are especially bad for just stopping in dangerous locations with no warning. Letting passengers out etc. It can be hard to prove, but that's why dash and head cams are becoming so popular.

But in lots of cases its is clear who's at fault.

No Pants · 25-10-2013 8:44pm

beauf wrote: »

Why. You're trying to drag this off topic into cyclist needing insurance when its not worked anywhere in the world. Its a complete dead end.

Not for the first time either.

Lawr · 25-10-2013 9:00pm

galwaycyclist wrote: »

For clarification this refers to a time (1964) when many traffic lights did not have pedestrian phases. However the legal principle - pedestrians yield to turning cars - is the exact opposite of what would apply in many other Northern European countries.

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Lusk_Doyle · 25-10-2013 9:26pm

Lawr wrote: »

That is pretty scary. I am a licensed driver in this country, not from this country, and I have to say, the idea of pedestrians yielding to turning traffic is counter-intuitive. As you say, that is not the legal principal in operation in my home country (US), nor is it my experience in other countries I have visited in Europe. I wondered why drivers seem so out of sorts when I assume right of way when crossing a street where there is no cross-walk or light. They come at you like they're not going to stop, and sometimes they don't. They just as soon run you down, the cheek of you.

Indeed. In Poland turning vehicles yield to pedestrians. Safer that way imo.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 9:30pm

Hmmzis wrote: »

Exactly, go to the guards and report it. There are far too many negligent and outright dangerous drivers out there, they destroy peoples lives on a daily basis. Please, don't allow this one to get off, it's just a matter of time before he mutilates or kills someone. He desrves every thing that gets thrown at him by the guards, insurance companies and maybe even a judge.

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

Zyzz · 25-10-2013 9:33pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

No, not at all.

thomas98798 · 25-10-2013 9:38pm

Zyzz wrote: »

No, not at all.

Cheers for the input, really puts everything in perspective..........

Lusk_Doyle · 25-10-2013 9:46pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

And the award for the most self righteous over dramatic post goes too.........Hmmzis

Come on lads, your making this driver or to be some sort of menace that needs to be locked up in the high security wing of portlaoise prison.

OP and the rest of ye are only looking for one thing, these posts stink of the compo claim culture that has caused insurance prices to become so inflated that ordinary hard working people just can't afford to drive to work. Shame on you all.

Have you been on the receiving end of a claim that makes you seem so bitter and prejudiced against cyclists involved in a road traffic accident?

Zyzz · 25-10-2013 9:48pm

thomas98798 wrote: »

Cheers for the input, really puts everything in perspective..........

As with your input. When we get these threads theres always a handful of users with a low post count that have nothing useful to say and continually post just to sh*t stir.

And you are a prime example.

Knocked off bike, who's fault?

Comments