What to do after RTC

LpPepper

Had an incident this morning with a learner driver. A combination of wet roads and her inexperience/over reacting are to blame. Basically a taxi wanted to move into her lane (from right lane to left) and she over reacted by coming to a complete stop. There were no other cars in front, behind or to the side of her. My back wheel locked up and I skidded, went into back left and side of her car.

No damage to the bike or myself from what I can see thankfully. She has offered to pay for any damage to the bike, which I'll get a shop to assess just in case. I feel fine but should I go see a GP just in case? Have read so many stories of symptoms not showing for days. Don't want to involve insurance or Gardaí because it is very minor really.

Have the whole thing on camera too as it happens so no arguing what happened.

Anything else I should be doing?

eeguy

Quick checkup and find out what the bike damage is.

Probably no need to go further.

godtabh

She stopped and you crashed in to her? Is that not your fault?

magicbastarder

did she swerve lanes or just come to a complete stop?

TheBlaaMan

LpPepper wrote: »

Had an incident this morning with a learner driver. A combination of wet roads and her inexperience/over reacting are to blame. ..... My back wheel locked up and I skidded, went into back left and side of her car.

Forget it. By now, she will have been advised by friends, family, colleagues that she was not to blame at all and (correctly) that you are at fault for not anticipating the incident, riding too close and not reacting in time.
Cover your own costs. Regard it as a learning opportunity and move on, IMO.

LpPepper

She moved from the right lane to left initially without indicating, then veered to the left a bit. I had moved just outside the cycle lane as there was road works ahead and it suddenly just ends so I was moving out so I wouldn't be squeezed out further on.

She literally came to a complete stop for zero reason, the lights were green, the taxi that she said cut in front of her was too far ahead to warrant her slamming on the brakes. It's not like I was tail gating her either, with how suddenly she stopped I had no chance to slow down without the wheel locking up.

jon1981

You were behind, you should have anticipated her stopping regardless of the reason she stopped and left room, you were behind. No different to a car rear ending another car. Be grateful she's willing to fix the bike and move on.

godtabh

LpPepper wrote: »

She moved from the right lane to left initially without indicating, then veered to the left a bit. I had moved just outside the cycle lane as there was road works ahead and it suddenly just ends so I was moving out so I wouldn't be squeezed out further on.

She literally came to a complete stop for zero reason, the lights were green, the taxi that she said cut in front of her was too far ahead to warrant her slamming on the brakes. It's not like I was tail gating her either, with how suddenly she stopped I had no chance to slow down without the wheel locking up.

Doesnt matter if she came to a compete stop for no reason. The law says if you crash into the back of her you are at fault.

timmy_mallet

As others have said, you're at fault here. If you were driving the car, regardless of reasons for doing so, and had to brake to a stop very suddenly, then another road user slammed into the back of you, what would you say/do?

jon1981

Sorry

No damage to the bike or myself from what I can see thankfully. She has offered to pay for any damage to the bike, which I'll get a shop to assess just in case. I feel fine but should I go see a GP just in case? Have read so many stories of symptoms not showing for days. Don't want to involve insurance or Gardaí because it is very minor really.

I think you might be a tad over reacting, having had a couple of serious bangs myself, I really think there is nothing see here.

jive

As already mentioned, accident was your fault in the eyes of the law.

I would be pretty confident at this point that she would have mentioned this to colleagues/friends/family and they'd have persuaded her that it wasn't her fault. The only reason she'll be willing to cover the costs is if she was a learner driving without a fully licensed driver.

Get a crash test done on the bike which is only about €40. Unless you took a bang to the head or have some kind of swelling then I would not bother with going to the Doctor, no need to go in for very minor falls just because it took place on a bicycle.

magicbastarder

i suspect if she was a learner, she was probably so frazzled after the impact that she'd have agreed to anything to make the problem go away.

that said, it raises the question of whether she had a qualified driver with her. that said, it should not have been a factor in the collision.

Alanstrainor

LpPepper wrote: »

I feel fine but should I go see a GP just in case? Have read so many stories of symptoms not showing for days.

When people talk of symptoms not showing, generally it's when they've flown over the bonnet of a car, or something which really gets the adrenaline going. It sounds like you didn't even go to ground in this incident? I would think there is no real reason to go to either a GP, or a bike shop. Inspect the bike for any damage, and if it's all good then just carry on.

LpPepper

I would normally agree with the fact that if a vehicle slows down then the following vehicle is at fault if a collison occurs. In this case though her coming to a complete stop was bizare given the circumstances and completely unreasonable. The lights were green, the other car mentioned was at least 1.5 car lengths ahead when it changed lanes so to any reasonable person there was no need to even brake at all don't mind go from 35km/h to zero.

magicbastarder

does not matter a jot. the responsibility lies with you to be able to stop, not with her to have to justify it.

godtabh

LpPepper wrote: »

I would normally agree with the fact that if a vehicle slows down then the following vehicle is at fault if a collison occurs. In this case though her coming to a complete stop was bizare given the circumstances and completely unreasonable. The lights were green, the other car mentioned was at least 1.5 car lengths ahead when it changed lanes so to any reasonable person there was no need to even brake at all don't mind go from 35km/h to zero.

Doesnt matter how you try to phrase it the fact is that you crashed in to a stationary car.

CramCycle

LpPepper wrote: »

Have the whole thing on camera too as it happens so no arguing what happened.

Put it up here, just to get a better view. If there is one thing I have learned over the years, commentary might help you see something you had not considered before.

Anything else I should be doing?

See a GP and get checked out.
As everyone else has said, your description paints it as your fault. I see it all the time with motorists jamming on (for a variety of reasons and sometimes for none at all).
If she pays for the bike, be thankful because she really has no obligation too. I done the same myself when I was younger where I rear ended a Golf. Young lad jumped out and apologised, went to make sure I was OK. It was nice to see such humanity on the roads but it was my own fault, even if it felt like it wasn't.

RustyNut

LpPepper wrote: »

I would normally agree with the fact that if a vehicle slows down then the following vehicle is at fault if a collison occurs. In this case though her coming to a complete stop was bizare given the circumstances and completely unreasonable. The lights were green, the other car mentioned was at least 1.5 car lengths ahead when it changed lanes so to any reasonable person there was no need to even brake at all don't mind go from 35km/h to zero.

You couldn't stop within the distance you could see to be clear. Your bad I'm afraid.

magicbastarder

*if* the incident is as you described it, i would play yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, with her and part on friendly terms with no money changing hands.
there's no guarantee a family member will not convince her that you were the one at fault, and come after you to repair damage to the car which may or may not exist.
chalk this one down to experience.

Eamonnator

Here's a bit from a British Columbian Website.
I imagine the Irish situation is pretty similar.

http://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/27

While a vehicle rear ending another is usually in the wrong, there are exceptions.

godtabh

Eamonnator wrote: »

Here's a bit from a British Columbian Website.
I imagine the Irish situation is pretty similar.

http://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/27

While a vehicle rear ending another is usually in the wrong, there are exceptions.

In the Irish case the exception is if the person did it on purpose in order to deliberately cause a collision (usually for insurance purposes). Dont think this is the case here.

Eamonnator

godtabh wrote: »

In the Irish case the exception is if the person did it on purpose in order to deliberately cause a collision (usually for insurance purposes). Dont think this is the case here.

There are other exceptions, for example if the brake lights on front vehicle are not working. There are others, however, I'm not sure, that any of them apply here.

ronn

You better hope the driver doesn't see this and develop some symptoms like you mentioned,
😄😄😄

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

*if* the incident is as you described it, i would play yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, with her and part on friendly terms with no money changing hands.
there's no guarantee a family member will not convince her that you were the one at fault, and come after you to repair damage to the car which may or may not exist.
chalk this one down to experience.

A learner driver in the car in her own!! That's against the law and may nullify her insurance, she'd do well not to put up a fight

eeguy

Throw the video up on youtube .

check_six

godtabh wrote: »

In the Irish case the exception is if the person did it on purpose in order to deliberately cause a collision (usually for insurance purposes). Dont think this is the case here.

It doesn't sound like the driver tried to initiate a collision, but switching lanes without indicating, then swerving further left, and then jamming on is not competent driving. Being predictable for other roadusers is one of the most important things you can do to ensure everyone's safety. I'd like to see just how erratic this driver is before casting judgement on the OP's inability to stop in time.

The normal criteria is that if you run into the back of someone, it's your fault. However, I've been in situations where cars have swung into the left side of the road just after passing me and I have barely been able to avoid colliding with the back of them. I would not have thought myself to blame if I had crashed into someone driving in such an inconsiderate unpredictable manner.

Crocked

Indeed if they were a learner driver and had "L" plates up you should have given more space than usual to allow for the fact they are a learner and more likely to do something unexpected.

LpPepper

Here's a screenshot of where I ended up afterwards. As you can see, the taxi ahead isnt anywhere near either of us. No cars on her side either.

godtabh

LpPepper wrote: »

Here's a screenshot of where I ended up afterwards. As you can see, the taxi ahead isnt anywhere near either of us. No cars on her side either.

Your argument is she stopped suddenly for now reason. If thats your argument and your argument only then the issue is with you.

Tigerandahalf

Are cyclists taking out insurance to cover themselves in incidences like this. Running into the side of a car could result in a bill into the thousand mark if a big dent was put in a car.

Or if you cycled into a pedestrian at a crossing and hurt them.

magicbastarder

check_six wrote: »

It doesn't sound like the driver tried to initiate a collision, but switching lanes without indicating, then swerving further left, and then jamming on is not competent driving.

the way i read the OP's post is that the driver had previously changed lanes without indicating, but there was no suggestion that this was a contributory factor.

the phrasing was 'moved from the right lane to left initially without indicating' which is different from saying 'she veered across in front of me'. obviously, i'm just going on the OP's description.

godtabh

CI insurance covers you if you are training

CramCycle

LpPepper wrote: »

Here's a screenshot of where I ended up afterwards. As you can see, the taxi ahead isnt anywhere near either of us. No cars on her side either.

Did she pull into the bike lane and then drop anchor? If she did then she is at fault. If she was always there as you approached, then you are at fault. I have a funny feeling (no offence intended) that you are explaining this poorly. A clip from a few seconds before upto the collision would be more explanatory.

Tigerandahalf

godtabh wrote: »

CI insurance covers you if you are training

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

godtabh

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

As far as I know yes but I think they are specific in what training is

Beasty

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

Public liability cover is €7.5m

cython

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

Technically I think it has to be approved/sanctioned training, but without saying who approves/sanctions it. Obviously an unattached rider is really the only person in a position to approve their own training (within any CI limits, which I haven't found yet despite searching), but why should they arguably get "more" benefit from the insurance than a club cyclist by virtue of being unattached, which would be the scenario if the club has to approve/sanction their members' training to be covered?

magicbastarder

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Are cyclists taking out insurance to cover themselves in incidences like this.

i say this with the fear of starting an argument about cyclists and insurance again, but is there anyone offering third party insurance to commuting cyclists?

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

By the sounds of it, you're legally in the wrong but if she is a learner driver without an accompanying driver she'd be f*cked and have zero claim surely?

if this is the case, both parties would be advised to walk away and consider themselves lucky.

Fian

Regardless of whether or not she was accompanied by a fully licenced driver you are the one legally liable for any damage here. You would be foolish to pursue her for any compensation.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't your fault morally, if she stopped suddenly for no good reason or whatever.

I remember when I was around 18 driving in connemara I was very annoyed about an accident I got into. A tourist stopped their car in the middle of the road to take a photo of galway bay. It was just over the brow of a "blind" hill - this hill (since removed) was one where you could only see about four feet of road as you approached the top - well you could see some more road further on but the road immediately beyond that first four feet was invisible behind the hill. A line of cars go over the hill, first car slams on the brakes and stops before hitting the tourist, second car manages to stop before hitting the first car. the available space to stop is getting closer and closer to the brow of the hill and I rear-ended the second car.

The tourist was clearly an idiot and the person who actually caused the accident. It was equally clear that I was the only one legally liable, even though it was not realistically reasonable to expect me to have driven at a speed that would have allowed me to avoid rear ending the car I hit. That's life.

Edit: she may have been commiting a driving offence by not being accompanied by a fully licenced driver. that does not shift the causation of the accident in any way and is entirely irrelevant to who is legally liable for the damage.

magicbastarder

i once rear-ended a taxi on my bike. totalled the frame.
a few people - non-cyclists, incidentally - suggested the taxi was at fault because it appeared that someone hailed him and he pulled in to the kerb (on a road with no cycle lane) and i hit the back of him.
i can't say if he indicated, as i was looking the wrong way at the time, and only looked up about 5 foot from his bumper, doing about 30kph, so obvious lack of observation on my part was the overriding factor as far as i'm concerned.

CramCycle

Fian wrote: »

The tourist was clearly an idiot and the person who actually caused the accident. It was equally clear that I was the only one legally liable, even though it was not realistically reasonable to expect me to have driven at a speed that would have allowed me to avoid rear ending the car I hit. That's life.

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

Fian

CramCycle wrote: »

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

Yes, I know. Obviously I was legally responsible.

In the real world nobody in Connemara goes over the top of a hill on the main Galway road at a speed that would allow them to come to a complete stop in four / five feet.

This is why I said "realistically reasonable" - nobody slowed down to walking speed to go over the top of the hill in the real world and in the real world doing so would probably increase the likelihood of being involved in an accident - albeit that the accident would be one for which the person rear-ending you would be legally responsible.

Legally required standards are not always going to be realistic in all circumstances and on particular spots on the road. The spot where that accident happened was a terrible part of the road, in the twenty+ years since the local authority have bulldozed/removed the entire hill and flattened the road - because it was clearly dangerous. The road went that way at the time only because it was squeezing between a large hill/cliff and the sea.

eeguy

CramCycle wrote: »

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

the way i read the OP's post is that the driver had previously changed lanes without indicating, but there was no suggestion that this was a contributory factor.

the phrasing was 'moved from the right lane to left initially without indicating' which is different from saying 'she veered across in front of me'. obviously, i'm just going on the OP's description.

Maybe I'm not interpreting it correctly. I'm working off the same description.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i once rear-ended a taxi on my bike. totalled the frame.
a few people - non-cyclists, incidentally - suggested the taxi was at fault because it appeared that someone hailed him and he pulled in to the kerb (on a road with no cycle lane) and i hit the back of him.
i can't say if he indicated, as i was looking the wrong way at the time, and only looked up about 5 foot from his bumper, doing about 30kph, so obvious lack of observation on my part was the overriding factor as far as i'm concerned.

A friend of mine once got slightly distracted when out of the saddle and moving very quick in traffic. The next thing he knows he is in the back seat of a Volvo that had braked more sharply than him in front of him. He said the upholstery would have been comfier if it wasn't covered in bits of rear windscreen glass! He was slightly startled but otherwise unharmed. The bike's front wheel wasn't in great shape though. I'm pretty sure he covered the cost of the windscreen repair (as you would expect).

godtabh

eeguy wrote: »

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

Its not really a strange situation. Driver had no forward visibility. Reasonable to assume you drive at a reasonable speed until you have the required forward visibility for the speed you are driving.

Beasty

You never know what's going to be around the next corner and of course should drive accordingly

eeguy

godtabh wrote: »

Its not really a strange situation. Driver had no forward visibility. Reasonable to assume you drive at a reasonable speed until you have the required forward visibility for the speed you are driving.

I 100% agree with the thinking.

I just wonder if I put a traffic cone in a similar spot it would probably be hit 9 times out of 10.

I was driving on a road near Kinnegad where a humpback bridge is located immediately around a corner. You'd safely take the corner at 60 or 70km/h, then be confronted with this obstacle and easily find yourself in a similar situation with no warning. 80km/h road and no sign for the bridge.

Eamonnator

eeguy wrote: »

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

A hill is just another type of bend.

godtabh

eeguy wrote: »

I 100% agree with the thinking.

I just wonder if I put a traffic cone in a similar spot it would probably be hit 9 times out of 10.

Probably but thats the fault of the drive not the cone.

eeguy

godtabh wrote: »

Probably but thats the fault of the drive not the cone.

But if 90% of drivers are at fault, then it's time to change the road.