Who would be at fault

LawlessBoy

Had a little accident today.

Was turning right on a busy road, a bus driver was letting me turn i took it slow as i always do becuase there does be cyclists coming down the inside. Then the thing i always look out for happened. The cyclist undertook the bus and crashed into my car, went onto the bonnet but was unharmed. Guards were called because the cyclist said that he didnt know who i was. How does he know i was insured ect..

The guard said eventhough he shouldnt have undertaken the bus the insurance company would more then likely side with the cyclist because as he said "at the end of the day you knocked him off his bike".

Anyone with past experience with something like this able to tell me what the outcome was like? Cyclist was very aggressive when it happened and even hit my car after he got back up in rage. Minor damage done to my car, scratches from the bike on the bumper and bonnet and a cracked headlight lense.

Any advice appreciated if it looks like im 100% at fault im going to try and sort it out without getting the insurance involved.

Mycroft H

LawlessBoy wrote: »

Had a little accident today.

Was turning right on a busy road, a bus driver was letting me turn i took it slow as i always do becuase there does be cyclists coming down the inside. Then the thing i always look out for happened. The cyclist undertook the bus and crashed into my car, went onto the bonnet but was unharmed. Guards were called because the cyclist said that he didnt know who i was. How does he know i was insured ect..

The guard said eventhough he shouldnt have undertaken the bus the insurance company would more then likely side with the cyclist because as he said "at the end of the day you knocked him off his bike".

Anyone with past experience with something like this able to tell me what the outcome was like? Cyclist was very aggressive when it happened and even hit my car after he got back up in rage. Minor damage done to my car, scratches from the bike on the bumper and bonnet and a cracked headlight lense.

Any advice appreciated if it looks like im 100% at fault im going to try and sort it out without getting the insurance involved.

Cyclist can legally filter in traffic now since about 2012.

Not much you can do to be honest. Failed to yield and all that. Silly as it sounds, the cyclist should have been moving with more care but you're probably still going to be at fault.

Casati

Looks like you are at fault, the cyclist was proceeding with right of way through a junction and were hit by a car turning. I would question if its worth putting through the insurance - i.e. you mentioned the cyclist seemed okay but are you concerned they will bring personal claim for injury or was there damage to the bike?

LawlessBoy

Just one of them things that happen ill wait and see how it plays out over the next few days. Can understand his annoyance at the whole thing the way he behaved about it all though was very bad.

Ah well.....

To Elland Back

Inform your insurer, if the cyclist intends to hold you liable, it is likely to include injury and you can't sort that privately. Let them handle it

LawlessBoy

Ill give them a ring in the morning when they open. Thanks

LawlessBoy

Got in touch with my insurer this morning was speaking to the claims department. They said that he had got a right to undertake the bus but that its the law for him to have a front light on his bike which he did not. Because of the negligence on his side they said they would be hesitant to pay out in case of a claim.
They said the fact that I have an independant witness to back up my side of the story that would strengthen my chances.

seagull

Does it make any difference that he hit you rather than you hitting him?

LawlessBoy

I asked they said they would look into it they're going to get in contact with Dublin bus to try get CCTV from the bus that allowed me to turn.

They said to me that if the bike was stopped and then knowingly undertook the bus and that that lead to the accident that he would be at fault.

Tigger

seagull wrote: »

Does it make any difference that he hit you rather than you hitting him?

well it means he's not dead which is nice

Atomic Pineapple

You could question whether the cyclist under taking the bus while it was clearly stopped for a reason falls under the new cycling without reasonable consideration offence. EG: If the cyclist kept up speed and failed to slow down given the bus was stopping. Might be a long shot given his right of way but worth asking the insurance co about. If it was dark and he had no front light that definitely will reflect badly on his case.

Páid

LawlessBoy wrote: »

I asked they said they would look into it they're going to get in contact with Dublin bus to try get CCTV from the bus that allowed me to turn.

They said to me that if the bike was stopped and then knowingly undertook the bus and that that lead to the accident that he would be at fault.

The cyclist cannot have known that the bus driver was "allowing" you to turn. The bus driver has no right to yield the cyclist's right of way, only his own.

The cyclist is perfectly entitled to pass the bus on the left except in the following circumstances;

• If the vehicle is turning left and looks like it will turn left before the cyclist overtakes
• If passengers are getting in or out of the vehicle
• If the vehicle is loading or unloading goods

You don't say if it was dark or not. If it went to court, not having a light on his bicycle may lead to a judge finding that the cyclist contributory negligent and may split liability between both parties (e.g. 90/10 or 70/30). It doesn't absolve you of your liability in the accident unless he was totally at fault and I think you would agree that you are at least partially to blame.

RacoonQueen

I would imagine the cyclist was continuing straight on alongside the bus, rather than 'undertaking'. Undertaking is a manouvere, where the cyclist would have moved from the centre or right hand side of his lane to the left side to pass the bus with the intention of moving to the centre or right again once passing the bus, in theory. I would assume the cyclist simply continued on his path.

If insurance companies are going to use a cyclist not having lights in broad daylight to get out of paying for their drivers error then it just underlines what a rubbish requirement the lights thing is.

Nichard Dixon

RacoonQueen wrote: »

If insurance companies are going to use a cyclist not having lights in broad daylight to get out of paying for their drivers error then it just underlines what a rubbish requirement the lights thing is.

Was it "broad" daylight?

My car has lights, even when it is daylight.

LawlessBoy

Sorry thought i did mention the time happened approx 5:45 PM. It was dark and the cyclist had no light or high vis on him at the time.

LawlessBoy

Páid wrote: »

You don't say if it was dark or not. If it went to court, not having a light on his bicycle may lead to a judge finding that the cyclist contributory negligent and may split liability between both parties (e.g. 90/10 or 70/30). It doesn't absolve you of your liability in the accident unless he was totally at fault and I think you would agree that you are at least partially to blame.

I agree that partial blame lies with both parties. But not 100% with one. If i came down to it that it was a 50/50 split well then it be happy. My car didnt come out of it untouched either. Im going to have to replace the headlight that cracked and deal with the other damage done. I just dont think that it is fair to put the blame 100% on any particular party.

Although he way have been on his path. Surely common sense says that when a bus is stopped in the middle of a road something is happening in front of it. I cycled myself for a long time and would never have done what he did.

ba_barabus

LawlessBoy wrote: »

I cycled myself for a long time and would never have done what he did.

For all he knew he was going up the inside of stationary traffic. I'd find it hard to believe you stopped your bike every time a vehicle in front of you stopped while you cycled.

If I did that while I cycled to work every morning I'd be better off just driving as I wouldn't get there any quicker on the bike.

As for the issue, I genuinely can't see the insurance company fighting over what will ultimately be a relatively small claim. Like it or not, they'll most likely pay him out the full cost of the claim just to be done with it. The costs involved in fighting what appears to be a claim largely caused by you pulling across them in traffic isn't worth the costs involved.

I cycle and drive to work (currently driving as a back injury is playing up) and I do sympathise with your situation. At this time of year it's difficult to see cyclists coming up the inside of traffic and even if you expect them to stop that doesn't always mean they will. Pain in the butt I know.

BTW they, or you, must have been moving pretty hard to crack a headlight I'd have thought.

LawlessBoy

Not really was a pretty low speed collision. Still managed it some how. Looks like its just being put down as a loss and getting it crossed off. Cant wait to see how it will effect my renewal in Jan:rolleyes:

ba_barabus

LawlessBoy wrote: »

Cant wait to see how till effect my renewal in Jan

Look at it this way, you've paid all those years of insurance and now you get to get some use out of it

They guy may not claim also and if it's a small amount you could opt to buy the claim back.

LawlessBoy

Yeah my insurance did mention that to me they also said he may not want to go through the insurance. He said himself he will be in contact with me first before he gets in contact with them. Weather he does or not is a different story though. Anyway they said if it was to be settled privately to be wary of him claiming personal injury further down the line.

ba_barabus

LawlessBoy wrote: »

Anyway they said if it was to be settled privately to be wary of him claiming personal injury further down the line.

As far as I know (I could be wrong) but you've done all you are required to do as you've informed your insurance company of the incident.

If he asks for cash to fix his bike you can pay it. I'd also get him to sign a letter that says any money you give him for repairs etc. is "in full and final settlement of the claim for XXXX". If he comes back within 2 years with an injury claim that can still be passed to the insurance company to handle as you've informed them of the incident.

Check that but as far as I know that's the case.

LawlessBoy

Thanks yeah they said to get a letter signed by him saying that no further claims would be made against me if i was to settle privately.

To Elland Back

LawlessBoy wrote: »

If i came down to it that it was a 50/50 split well then it be happy. .

Just for your own information, a 50/50 settlement or agreement does not mean you look after your own losses. You pay half his losses and he pays half of yours. Be careful

Páid

If he's asking for cash to repair the bike, I would offer to pay the bike repair shop directly by card and get a receipt from them.

milltown

Páid wrote: »

If he's asking for cash to repair the bike, I would offer to pay the bike repair shop directly by card and get a receipt from them.

On the contrary. I'd be going out of my way to avoid winding him up. He may not be inclined to pursue any claim beyond the repair of his bike. Yet.

Also. Statute of limitations on PI claims is 7 years from when he is aware of any problem, not from the date of the accident. Meaning if he goes to the doctor about something in a year or two that the doc says could be result of the crash, the clock starts then.

Páid

milltown wrote: »

On the contrary. I'd be going out of my way to avoid winding him up. He may not be inclined to pursue any claim beyond the repair of his bike. Yet.

If they are genuine repairs to his bike he won't mind if you pay the bike shop directly and then you have two forms of proof that you paid for his bike repair (card receipt and invoice from shop). If you pay him cash you have no recourse.

Also. Statute of limitations on PI claims is 7 years from when he is aware of any problem, not from the date of the accident. Meaning if he goes to the doctor about something in a year or two that the doc says could be result of the crash, the clock starts then.

This is not correct. Under the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 the time-limit for claims for compensation is two years from the date of the accident.

newcavanman

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

You could question whether the cyclist under taking the bus while it was clearly stopped for a reason falls under the new cycling without reasonable consideration offence. EG: If the cyclist kept up speed and failed to slow down given the bus was stopping. Might be a long shot given his right of way but worth asking the insurance co about. If it was dark and he had no front light that definitely will reflect badly on his case.

Seems like at least half of all cyclists have either no lights or ones which are so small as to be almost impossible to see. Why arent there regs for what size, brightness of lights should be used? Most cyclists seem to think drivers are psychic

ba_barabus

newcavanman wrote: »

Most cyclists seem to think drivers are psychic

To be fair most drivers/pedestrians/taxi drivers/bus drivers/other cyclists seem to think everybody else on the roads are psychic

John_Rambo

Páid wrote: »

If he's asking for cash to repair the bike, I would offer to pay the bike repair shop directly by card and get a receipt from them.

Why?

If the cyclist wants to scrap the old bike and put some money towards a newer model that's his choice.

If the cyclist doesn't want to get the bike fixed that's also his choice. It's still damaged.

challengemaster

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I would imagine the cyclist was continuing straight on alongside the bus, rather than 'undertaking'. Undertaking is a manouvere, where the cyclist would have moved from the centre or right hand side of his lane to the left side to pass the bus with the intention of moving to the centre or right again once passing the bus, in theory.

Where'd you pull that gem out of? Overtaking on the left is exactly what it says on the tin, passing a vehicle on the left hand side. There's no manoeuvre about it.

Same as if you "continue straight" on the left hand lane of a motorway and pass cars on your right, you'd be guilty of overtaking on the left.

milltown

Páid wrote: »

This is not correct. Under the Civil Liabilities and Courts Act 2004 the time-limit for claims for compensation is two years from the date of the accident.

I'm pretty sure the two year limit only applies to claims pursued through PIAB, who routinely refer all but the most straightforward cases to the courts anyway.

AmboMan

From the way you describe the collision my opinion is that it is your fault. You made a turn into the cyclists path. Let it be a lesson learned for you. Another scenario that's dangerous is the same situation you describe except for its a vehicle hurtling up the inside on the bus lane.

Páid

milltown wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the two year limit only applies to claims pursued through PIAB, who routinely refer all but the most straightforward cases to the courts anyway.

I'm not trying to argue with you. As far as I am aware there is a two year limit on all personal injury claims apart from some rare exceptions i.e. you must initiate legal action within two years except for some rare cases where the claimant only becomes aware of the injury years later e.g. diseases caused by exposure in a work related environment.

If the cyclist wants to scrap the old bike and put some money towards a newer model that's his choice. If the cyclist doesn't want to get the bike fixed that's also his choice. It's still damaged.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a choice. He could also do those things but I would be paying him by cheque and asking for a receipt. If you hand over cash there is no record of what is was for, how much, etc.

Roadhawk

ba_barabus wrote: »

To be fair most drivers/pedestrians/taxi drivers/bus drivers/other cyclists seem to think everybody else on the roads are psychic

Cyclists have a duty of care while using the roads also. I would question why the cyclist could not stop in time...was he traveling too fast (cracked headlight) for the conditions of the road? If it was a late movement from the driver could he have gone around considering the bus was stopped? Could he not see you because he had no light? Cyclists aggression is common but he was just knock off his bike. We all need to remember that accidents happen.

AmboMan

Roadhawk wrote: »

Cyclists have a duty of care while using the roads also. I would question why the cyclist could not stop in time...was he traveling too fast (cracked headlight) for the conditions of the road? If it was a late movement from the driver could he have gone around considering the bus was stopped? Could he not see you because he had no light? Cyclists aggression is common but he was just knock off his bike. We all need to remember that accidents happen.

In all fairness the main advantage of bike lights is to make the cyclists visible to other road users not to illuminate their direction of travel.

Roadhawk

AmboMan wrote: »

In all fairness the main advantage of bike lights is to make the cyclists visible to other road users not to illuminate their direction of travel.

I would tend to think the contrary where the light is supposed to light the path for the cyclist and a Hi-Vis vest is for visibility.

LawlessBoy

It is not in the law though as far as i am aware that they are required to wear a hi-vis. It is however the law they they have lights on their bike.

Páid

It is now an offence not to have a lit lamp during lighting up time. The penalty is a €40 fine and it is a separate issue to deciding liability for the accident. The Garda could fine him €40 but it doesn't mean that he will be liable for the accident.

Roadhawk

LawlessBoy wrote: »

It is not in the law though as far as i am aware that they are required to wear a hi-vis. It is however the law they they has lights on their bike.

True, but it is common sense.

RSA recommendations for safety:

http: //www .rsa. ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

(remove spaces to use link)

LawlessBoy

Páid wrote: »

It is now an offence not to have a lit lamp during lighting up time. The penalty is a €40 fine and it is a separate issue to deciding liability for the accident. The Garda could fine him €40 but it doesn't mean that he will be liable for the accident.

If it was to go further into a PI claim though it would reduce compensation due to his negligence.

Mycroft H

LawlessBoy wrote: »

It is not in the law though as far as i am aware that they are required to wear a hi-vis. It is however the law they they have lights on their bike.

And I hope it never becomes the law. High vis reflective stripes are only useful when a light directly points on them. They're retro-reflective. Dipped lights point onto the road so wouldn't illuminate a jacket a lot of the time. Same with bike reflectors.


Good lights that are bright and noticeable are the only option. Of course a jacket can supplement this but active beats passive every day.