T-boned by teenage on bicycle

romperstomper

While cycling home today I was hit from the side by a teenager who turned onto the road i was travelling down. we are both fine with minor bruising. however the kid is demanding compensation (he is from the area, we know each other to see) to fix his bike (broken spokes).

needless to say i don't want to give him anything for an accident I didn't cause BUT his mates were behind him so I will be outnumbered if this goes to small claims court.

suggestions?

BreadnBuddha

romperstomper wrote: »

comng home today I was hit from the side by a teenager who turnee onto the road i was travelling down. we are both fine with minor bruising. however the kid is demanding compensation (he is from the area, we know each other to see) to fix his bike (broken spokes).

needless to say i dont want to give him anything for an accident I didnt cause BUT his mates were behind him so I will be outnumbered if this goes to small claims court.

suggestions?

Are you well enough to extend your two middle fingers?

Atlantic Dawn

Who had the right of way? I'd imagine you did if he collided with your side or were there traffic lights?

ThisRegard

What happened, he cycled into you on a road you had right of way on? If so ignore it and drop into the gardai to cover yourself.

ED E

Get ahead of him, give a statement to the gardai, no little toe rag will go to the effort of challenging it in court.

ted1

It won't go to court. It's less than 40 euro. Tell him to take a hike

Dermot Illogical

Send him your bill.

romperstomper

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Who had the right of way? I'd imagine you did if he collided with your side or were there traffic lights?

roads were of equal importance (he took left at a tee juction, i was on a straight run).

just back from the guards, they listenend to what i told them and said they would contact me if there was a complaint made. i was told they dont get involved in road accidents where no one is hurt

Del2005

romperstomper wrote: »

roads were of equal importance (he took left at a tee juction, i was on a straight run).

just back from the guards, they listenend to what i told them and said they would contact me if there was a complaint made. i was told they dont get involved in road accidents where no one is hurt

If you hear from him again remind him of the always give way to traffic on your right law.

Greenman

romperstomper wrote: »

roads were of equal importance (he took left at a tee juction, i was on a straight run).

Did he try to overtake then do a left?


Good that you went to the Feds.

romperstomper

Greenman wrote: »

Did he try to overtake then do a left?


Good that you went to the Feds.

thousand words etc

magicbastarder

romperstomper wrote: »

roads were of equal importance (he took left at a tee juction, i was on a straight run).

sounds like it was him who would have passed the yield/stop sign without yielding or stopping?

romperstomper

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds like it was him who would have passed the yield/stop sign without yielding or stopping?

It is a housing estate. no signs or signals. coming to a T-junction (in my experience) usually involves stopping and checking for traffic

PropJoe10

I would wave a middle finger in his direction, personally.

Cookie_Monster

romperstomper wrote: »

It is a housing estate. no signs or signals. coming to a T-junction (in my experience) usually involves stopping and checking for traffic

always yield to traffic from the right

if you are at a junction where the roads are of equal importance, the traffic on your right has right of way. You must let that traffic pass before moving on. It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right. You must proceed with caution while showing regard for other users of the road.

http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/junctions.html
it'll be in the actual legislation somewhere to the same effect.

Greenman

As per this great diagram by Romperstomper AKA as OP the "Villain" nothing to say.

The Bishop Basher

Just wondering...

Where are all the usual posts advising op to go immediately to the doctor to get a full check up ?

Minor bruising, as i understand it from countless previous posts on here, could be hiding a multitude of injuries that will only come to light in the coming days..

Or is that only suggested when a motorist is involved as there's potential for an insurance payout..

SteM

Swanner wrote: »

Just wondering...

Where are all the usual posts advising op to go immediately to the doctor to get a full check up ?

Minor bruising, as i understand it from countless previous posts on here, could be hiding a multitude of injuries that will only come to light in the coming days..

Or is that only suggested when a motorist is involved as there's potential for an insurance payout..

Jeez, there's always one.

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Or is that only suggested when a motorist is involved as there's potential for an insurance payout..

It's because a 60kg teenager travelling at 20km/h and a 1500kg car travelling at 40km/h are incomparable.

You know, physics. The kind of basic physics anyone in control of such a vehicle should know.

Chuchote

It would be an idea to make a dated statement naming the road and the T junction and adding a diagram or photo of the junction showing who was going where, and bring the statement to the local garda station and ask the guard there to date-stamp both pages.
This doesn't mean the gardaí take any stance on it; it's just a way of dating what you say to the time when you said it.
Put it away in a file where you keep stuff you need.
If the baby cyclist comes back at you in three months' time (when you've long forgotten the circumstances) you have a dated description from the time of the crash, which will hold more water with any authority that may want witness.

Macy0161

Swanner wrote: »

Or is that only suggested when a motorist is involved as there's potential for an insurance payout..

Yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with the chances of the driver of the car being injured (given the description) being low.

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

It's because a 60kg teenager travelling at 20km/h and a 1500kg car travelling at 40km/h are incomparable.

Well the most recent example i was thinking of was a cyclist who hit a stationary car so i fail to see the relevance of your point..

He also just had some bruising yet almost every response, right from the get go, advised him to get checked out by a doc straight away..

I was just wondering why the response differs to such an extent depending on what is hit..

seamus wrote: »

You know, physics. The kind of basic physics anyone in control of such a vehicle should know.

As I said above.. In the example i had in mind, the car was stationary..

LynnGrace

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Are you well enough to extend your two middle fingers?

Or even one finger.

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Well the most recent example i was thinking of was a cyclist who hit a stationary car so i fail to see the relevance of your point.

My mind-reading skills have failed me again. OF COURSE I should have known that you were referring to some vague recent example of something you read. How stupid of me.

If someone was out for a run and said they ran into a solid brick wall. And someone else said they bumped into another runner and fell over, you'd consider the former to be more serious than the latter.

It's that simple. Your Daily Mail-esque narrative about compo culture doesn't exist.

lawred2

romperstomper wrote: »

It is a housing estate. no signs or signals. coming to a T-junction (in my experience) usually involves stopping and checking for traffic

you don't need signs to instruct you to not stop at a T junction

tell the dope to f*ck off

Macy0161

Swanner wrote: »

He also just had some bruising yet almost every response, right from the get go, advised him to get checked out by a doc straight away..

Perhaps the OP could clarify if they suffered any injury or bruising. I took it as the teenager cycling into the car that had the bruising. I don't see how the driver of the car would be injured, but they could clarify.

If someone cycled into the back of a car, I would recommend going to the doctor. Not for insurance purposes, just to be checked out. Same advice is often given if someone just comes off the bike with no one else involved!

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

My mind-reading skills have failed me again. OF COURSE I should have known that you were referring to some vague recent example of something you read. How stupid of me.

Well I was referring to a recent thread on this forum where a cyclist hit a stationary vehicle and was looking for advice on next steps...

Nothing vague about it and no mind reading skills required. You made a few assumptions which were incorrect but hey, it happens, no biggy..

seamus wrote: »

If someone was out for a run and said they ran into a solid brick wall. And someone else said they bumped into another runner and fell over, you'd consider the former to be more serious than the latter.

Not really. My advice would be the same for both though. If you're hurt and you think it's serious or needs treatment, go see a doctor. If not, rest and ice and you'll be fine. I've no idea what point you're trying to make though..

SteM

Swanner wrote: »

Well I was referring to a recent thread on this forum where a cyclist hit a stationary vehicle and was looking for advice on next steps...

Nothing vague about it and no mind reading skills required. You made a few assumptions which were incorrect but hey, it happens, no biggy..



Not really. My advice would be the same for both though. If you're hurt and you think it's serious or needs treatment, go see a doctor. If not, rest and ice and you'll be fine. I've no idea what point you're trying to make though..

Oddly enough, I was thinking the exact same thing about your posts in this thread.

If you're annoyed about advice on a separate thread why not post about it there instead of posting about it here?

CosmicSmash

seamus wrote: »

My mind-reading skills have failed me again. OF COURSE I should have known that you were referring to some vague recent example of something you read. How stupid of me.

If someone was out for a run and said they ran into a solid brick wall. And someone else said they bumped into another runner and fell over, you'd consider the former to be more serious than the latter.

It's that simple. Your Daily Mail-esque narrative about compo culture doesn't exist.

There's no need to attack other posts that conflict with your views. You come across as a child throwing your toys out of the pram with the last bit.

Chuchote

Can we agree that yes, it would be a good idea for the OP to go and get checked out after falling off his or her bike?

The Bishop Basher

SteM wrote: »

If you're annoyed about advice on a separate thread why not post about it there instead of posting about it here?

Because my question was in relation to the fact that different advice was given on 2 similar threads. Given that this was the more recent of the 2 threads I would have thought it would be the more appropriate..

Look it was a simple enough question that elicited a very defensive response so i'll take my answer from that and leave it there...

SteM

Swanner wrote: »

Because my question was in relation to the fact that different advice was given on 2 similar threads. Given that this was the more recent of the 2 threads I would have thought it would be the more appropriate..

Look it was a simple enough question that seems to have elicited a very defensive response so i'll take my answer from that and leave it there...

Different advice from different posters isn't it though? It's because people think differently. Not a big shock. Some people are more cautious about their physical well being than others. My wife will think about going to see a doctor over things I would never even consider.

AlreadyHome

Swanner wrote: »

Because my question was in relation to the fact that different advice was given on 2 similar threads. Given that this was the more recent of the 2 threads I would have thought it would be the more appropriate..

Look it was a simple enough question that elicited a very defensive response so i'll take my answer from that and leave it there...

It was a purposefully provocative, incredibly vague question consequently referencing something utterly unrelated.

Take your ellipses and jog on.

oflahero

CosmicSmash wrote: »

You come across as a child throwing your toys out of the pram with the last bit.

No, he doesn't. The majority of readers on this forum have long accepted with gritted teeth that there is a minority of posters with an axe to grind about cycling who hang around like a bad smell, and occasionally throw in the odd pointless bomb like our friend above.

It's a mystifying phenomenon, and I don't know how anyone can have the tenacity to waste their time like that, but there you have it. It's pretty safe to say instead that most people here would take Seamus' admirably-restrained view.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: If there is an issue with a post, report it. Rules are simple. You attack the post not the poster.

This is a warning to all posters, I am not going backwards in the thread but all future posts breaching this warning will be carded.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Can we agree that yes, it would be a good idea for the OP to go and get checked out after falling off his or her bike?

I've only once gone to the doctor after falling off a bike (it seldom happens anyway; less than once a decade as an adult), and that's because I tore my knee open. It was fine anyway, but I got a tetanus shot.

Other than that, it depends on what injuries you've received. Usually people are urged to see a doctor because they've struck their head. That can seem harmless and then unexpectedly become a race against time.

NUTLEY BOY

OP - Small Claims Court would have no jurisdiction over this. It would be a District Court case.

Are there any marks or damage on your car ? If so, photograph them as they might help to verify point of impact on your vehicle.

Be sure to report this to your motor insurers.

Be sure to tell your insurers that you hold a firm view that you were not at fault. They can do what they like with the claim but it does help to register your views and makes them justify themselves to you before they contemplate even a nuisance value settlement to make it go away.

Once had a case like this except the villain drove a car out of a side-road. The good guy driver worked overseas most of the year - literally up the jungle. Villain sued thinking good guy would not even show for the case. We got the good guy back from the jungle and kept him out of sight until the lying villain completed his evidence. We then put the good guy in to evidence and that killed the case dead. You should have seen the villain's face.:)

Moral - there is an unmitigated chancer around every bend :mad:

tomasrojo

Was the OP not also on a bike?

Nekarsulm

I presume OP was also on a bicycle. He said both the teenager and himself suffered minor bruising.
Don't know where the idea of a car being involved came from.

romperstomper

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I presume OP was also on a bicycle. He said both the teenager and himself suffered minor bruising.
Don't know where the idea of a car being involved came from.

Edited OP to say cycling home.

endagibson

Chuchote wrote: »

Can we agree that yes, it would be a good idea for the OP to go and get checked out after falling off his or her bike?

I didn't when I fell off last year. Of course my fall was broken by a roadside hedge full of brambles, so all I had were scrapes to my face, arms and legs. Lots of blood, but no real harm. Cycled home, cleaned and disinfected myself there.

Wishbone Ash

lawred2 wrote: »

you don't need signs to instruct you to not stop at a T junction....

Housing estates can be a bit different though. My parents live beside a T-junction where the accepted right of way is the route taken by the 'villian' in the previous descriptions. There is no signage and it just seemed to evolve that way over the years. It is a bit puzzling for those not familiar with the set up.

The Bishop Basher

tomasrojo wrote: »

Other than that, it depends on what injuries you've received. Usually people are urged to see a doctor because they've struck their head. That can seem harmless and then unexpectedly become a race against time.

I completely agree with this.. Although in the case of a head injury I would recommend by-passing the GP and going straight to an A&E especially if consciousness was lost. A GP can only do very basic tests and as you say, time is of the essence with head injuries.

Weepsie wrote: »

I suggest you try cycling into an open car door.
A) you'll see how serious it can be.

Well i have cycled into the side of a car if that helps.. I clipped the edge of the roof as I went over the top and landed in a heap on the far side. Got up, dusted myself down, sorted it out with the driver and went on my way, shaken but relatively uninjured thankfully..

Weepsie wrote: »

it might knock sense into you and your attempt at trolling.

Well the personal insults just keep coming here today :eek:

Good job i have a thick skin...:D

Weepsie wrote: »

Finally recommending seeing a doc is not automatically trying to screw it someone on insurance. Its precautionary, nothing more

Precautionary for what though ? Do you mean precautionary in case you decide to pursue a claim or precautionary from a medical standpoint. If you mean from a medical standpoint...

Do you want the doctor to confirm that you do indeed have a bruised arm as you suspected

Or...

Do you want them to confirm that you do indeed have some other injury which currently has no symptoms, hasn't yet manifested itself and that you currently don't know you have..

Please clarify...

Del2005

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Housing estates can be a bit different though. My parents live beside a T-junction where the accepted right of way is the route taken by the 'villian' in the previous descriptions. There is no signage and it just seemed to evolve that way over the years. It is a bit puzzling for those not familiar with the set up.

Local conventions don't override the law though. If someone pulled out in front of someone travelling from the right they are responsible for the RTC.

Chuchote

'Local conventions' shouldn't contradict traffic law. Not everyone's local, except on… what's that TV programme?

Yeah, in talking about getting checked up I meant in case of a) bang on the head or b) whiplash-likely landing.

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?

I'm turning to the dark side, if DHL ever turn up with the helmet I've ordered; got a MIPS version of the Giro Sutton.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?

Not a metastudy, and a bit old now, but useful: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

Chuchote wrote: »

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?
/QUOTE]

Not a metastudy, and a bit old now, but useful: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Mm. It just gives a blanket statement that "helmets are proven to save lives", but uses a motorcycling statistic to back it up.

HivemindXX

Weepsie wrote: »

You're talking about the thread when the car was in traffic and opened the door to which an incoming cyclist hit. You're being purposely vague saying stationary car.

That's not being purposely vague, it's lying plain and simple. Thanks for pointing it out. It's obvious that Swanner was hoping nobody would notice.

Type 17

Another way of looking at this is that, where the two roads are of equal importance, and there are no overriding signs or markings, any road user who is going straight has right of way over any road user who is turning. This is the law in most situations and in most countries around the world, except when other issues mean the rule is reversed (many continental European countries enforce traffic calming in urban zones by giving all side roads in a village priority over the main road, using the yellow diamond road sign with a slash through it ("you do not have priority")).

This basic principle is also why vehicles turning (left or right) must give way to pedestrians crossing the road that the vehicle is turning into, as the pedestrian is going straight on and the vehicle is turning.

The dopey teen turning left should be told to get lost, and even be given any bill that the OP incurred.

tomasrojo

In Killucan, near Kinnegad, it was the custom at one junction for locals to eschew the correct route around a triangular traffic island (go the left of the triangle and then hang right) and instead drive up the road to the right of the triangle as a short cut -- which, of course, set them on a collision course with oncoming traffic. I hadn't thought about it for years until just now.

Wesser

The problem here isn't the teenager.
The problem is that these teenagers usually have a fairly aggressive mother who believes that her son is an angel and is very angry that someone else has harmed him or crossed him
In any way. She is a hovering snowplough parent who has taken cases herself and has reared her children in to an ethos of compensation. This is why a teenager thinks immediately of the money involved. I was involved in a similar incident as a teenager and looking for money never crossed my
Mind!