Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Accident

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,845 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Did any of the parties involved have camera footage?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Unfortunately not..it was only after the car was moved that we realised we should have taken a pic of its position on the road, but you just don't think of those things in the aftermath.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Question for me would be why would your friend even want to undertake the car when it slowed down?
    Why wouldn't your friend just slow down?
    If undertaking o the road as you describe, surely there wouldn't be a metre space either.

    Not having a go, and the car driver sounds very inattentive, but your friend made a big mistake here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭circular flexing


    he had passed back up to the inside as the car slowed for the ramp, not the turn, and before any indication was given

    That doesn't matter - going up the inside of any moving vehicle is madness.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i do it all the time. cycling in any urban environment involves filtering up past slower moving traffic. i have often passed cars which have slowed for speed ramps - i can usually take them without slowing down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    i do it all the time. cycling in any urban environment involves filtering up past slower moving traffic. i have often passed cars which have slowed for speed ramps - i can usually take them without slowing down.

    Agreed, certain sections on my commute where I pass cars on the left as they slow for ramps.


    @OP if this motorist overtook you, indicated and moved left and then slammed on I’d be asking for his insurance details and then letting his insurance company decide if he is liable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭circular flexing


    i do it all the time. cycling in any urban environment involves filtering up past slower moving traffic. i have often passed cars which have slowed for speed ramps - i can usually take them without slowing down.

    Yes but would you do it if there was a junction 20 feet after the ramp? It's all about situation awareness. Now if the traffic was moving slowly (e.g. because of a tailback) and there were no junctions coming up, then I would say that proceeding slowly up the inside is probably safe but always be aware of the fact that a car might pull into the left for no reason. Yes they would (potentially) be in the wrong but what use is that if you are the one who ends up seriously injured.

    I approach all cycling with the following in mind: 1) I'm going to come out the (physically) worse off in any impact with a car. 2) one of the cars surrounding me is going to do something unpredictable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,270 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Yes but would you do it if there was a junction 20 feet after the ramp? It's all about situation awareness. Now if the traffic was moving slowly (e.g. because of a tailback) and there were no junctions coming up, then I would say that proceeding slowly up the inside is probably safe but always be aware of the fact that a car might pull into the left for no reason. Yes they would (potentially) be in the wrong but what use is that if you are the one who ends up seriously injured.

    I approach all cycling with the following in mind: 1) I'm going to come out the (physically) worse off in any impact with a car. 2) one of the cars surrounding me is going to do something unpredictable.

    You do know that a motorist is supposed to indicate well before a junction (20ft does not satisfy that requirement), and before manoeuvring, check mirrors...not indicate at the last minute.

    Please don’t put the onus on the cyclist to second guess every single motorist. Motorists have responsibilities to all other road users.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,176 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Was out for a cycle with my friend, car overtakes us approaching a speed ramp, then slows for the ramp allowing my friend to pass back up to about rear passenger window, I was about three metres behind. Car then indicates for left hand turn which was about 20ft beyond the ramp and edges in to approx. 45cm from the kerb..i am 2 metres behind, decide that they are making the turn and hit the brakes as hard as I can. At the same time car has spotted my friend, about level with passenger window, and has jammed on. My bike is already flipping as I hit the rear of the car, I've somehow managed to flip to the lhs of the car, cuts and bruises and a very stiff knee, bike carries on and breaks the rear window. Driver is claiming they saw us and said I just ran into the back of them.


    I hope every one is OK.

    The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong.
    You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop.
    I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken.
    I hope you aren't too badly injured.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,176 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Intrigued by the replies so far..is a car entitled to take up my space on the road just by an indicator. In a split second I took the lesser of two evils..self preservation kicks in.

    Yes. A car in front of you indicating left has right of way. Even in a dedicated cycle lane the car has right of way when indicating & in that lane. If you tried to squeeze in beside him you are undertaking him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I hope every one is OK.

    The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong.
    You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop.
    I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken.
    I hope you aren't too badly injured.

    OP says he pulled the brakes as hard he could as soon as he saw the indicator and still ended up hitting the car. In fact he was flipping over the handlebars regardless.

    Not much he could have done to avoid a car that overtakes him, moves left and then slams on; indicator or no indicator.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Yes. A car in front of you indicating left has right of way. Even in a dedicated cycle lane the car has right of way when indicating & in that lane. If you tried to squeeze in beside him you are undertaking him.

    This is not necessarily true.

    It is illegal for a cyclist to pass on the left if the motorist is indicating AND likely to complete the maneuver before the cyclist can pass.

    I don’t think that’s applicable here though because the OP wasn’t really passing on the left until the motorist started to brake and move left.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,176 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    amcalester wrote:
    Not much he could have done to avoid a car that overtakes him, moves left and then slams on; indicator or no indicator.


    He was too close for the speed he was going.

    OP also said he planned to overtake him on the right because he was turning. Op saw that he was turning but didn't slow down. Op didnt slow down because he planned to overtake on the right. The car had to break & op went in the back of the car. Too close for the speed.

    Driver sounds like a dick driver too that could use some lessons & a month in driving manners class.
    If it were me my windscreen cover sorts out the window (well I don't actually have a back window) & if there was only a scratch on the bumper I wouldn't be looking for anything from the cyclist. End of the day I'd be relieved that no one was badly injured regardless of who's fault


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,176 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    amcalester wrote:
    It is illegal for a cyclist to pass on the left if the motorist is indicating AND likely to complete the maneuver before the cyclist can pass.

    In this case op clearly says he knows that he's turning left and is already manoeuvring into the lane
    amcalester wrote:
    I don’t think that’s applicable here though because the OP wasn’t really passing on the left until the motorist started to brake and move left.

    OP wanted to overtake on the right. He read the situation wrong and got caught with his pants down. It's life. It happens. I'm betting next time op will slow down when he sees the indicator. An indicator is a signal for stopping as well as turning left.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I hope every one is OK.

    The way you describe it doesn't put you in a good light. I wasn't there so I'm not saying who was in the wrong.
    You decided that he was turning. Didn't his indicator tell you this was happening anyway? Regardless of why he hit the breaks you seemed to be cycling too fast and close & not prepared for him to stop.
    I'm not having a pop at you. I wasn't there. It's just the way that you describe it. Maybe you are still shaken.
    I hope you aren't too badly injured.

    Thank you.

    If the car had been performing a normal left hand turn, ie pulling up level with the junction before turning, i'd have been fine.
    They weren't. They were planning on swinging a U-turn in the opening so approached at a 30 angle to the kerb directly from the ramp to where the kerb ended for the turn, directly across my path.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    OP you’ve confused me.

    Were you attempting to pass the car on the left while it was indicating to turn left?

    Your posts aren’t clear (at least to me).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,965 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Cycling two abreast might have stopped the driver overtaking in a situation where he/she clearly should have hung back behind the cyclists.

    Absolutely useless to you now OP... and probably a bit annoying, so sorry about that and I hope your knee gets better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    amcalester wrote: »
    OP you’ve confused me.

    Were you attempting to pass the car on the left while it was indicating to turn left?

    Your posts aren’t clear (at least to me).

    No, the indication to turn left and the veering in were instantaneous.
    We were basically travelling in the same direction on a downhill bit of road so freewheeling, car passes, goes two or three metres ahead, slows for ramp, we catch up, car indicates and veers in. Friend has reached the junction, feels car close and moves to left. Driver sees friend and stops dead. I haven't reached the junction so no room on left, hit brakes.

    From the ramp to the collision couldn't have been more than two seconds.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    No, the indication to turn left and the veering in were instantaneous.
    We were basically travelling in the same direction on a downhill bit of road so freewheeling, car passes, goes two or three metres ahead, slows for ramp, we catch up, car indicates and veers in. Friend has reached the junction, feels car close and moves to left. Driver sees friend and stops dead. I haven't reached the junction so no room on left, hit brakes.

    From the ramp to the collision couldn't have been more than two seconds.

    Then I can’t see how it’s your fault.

    Car overtakes you, slows down approaching a speed bump, then indicates, moves left and slams on all pretty much in one maneuver and you go into the back of him.

    Get his insurance details and let the insurance company decide if he’s liable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,903 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    They were planning on swinging a U-turn in the opening so approached at a 30 angle to the kerb directly from the ramp to where the kerb ended for the turn, directly across my path.


    Am a bit confused about this bit. On Irish roads, a U-turn is done to the right, so are you saying they indicated and pulled to the left even though they were planning to turn right?



    If that's the case, was this road wide enough to execute a U-turn? I don't think I've ever come across an urban road that's busy enough to warrant speed ramps and wide enough to allow that kind of manoeuvre.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,778 ✭✭✭cython


    Am a bit confused about this bit. On Irish roads, a U-turn is done to the right, so are you saying they indicated and pulled to the left even though they were planning to turn right?



    If that's the case, was this road wide enough to execute a U-turn? I don't think I've ever come across an urban road that's busy enough to warrant speed ramps and wide enough to allow that kind of manoeuvre.

    I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense :) (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,122 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Rechuchote wrote: »
    That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?

    No.


  • Registered Users Posts: 196 ✭✭Steoller


    Rechuchote wrote: »
    That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?
    No. You must stop at a red light regardless of if it is clear.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,863 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Rechuchote wrote: »
    That reminds me: a legal question. If a pedestrian traffic light is red in front of you but the road is empty, can you legally pass through?



    Please tell me this is a joke and these people are not on the road, either walking, car or bike


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,903 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    cython wrote: »
    I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense :) (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.


    That is more or less how I read it the first time, in which case, the driver should have been indicating right, not left ... and, of course, taking extra care to ensure that they had full situation awareness before starting an unorthodox manoeuvre. Even so, is it legal to use a junction in that way? Isn't it the same as crossing the white line to make a left turn? (which plenty of people do, for no good reason!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    cython wrote: »
    I don't think it's all that confusing, except that technically the manoeuvre probably isn't a U-turn in the traditional/technical sense :) (might be more of a q-turn but that doesn't have the same wide understanding!). Rather the driver wanted to turn around, and in order to do so was essentially using the mouth of the junction as one might use a lay-by to effectively widen the road at the point where they were turning (swinging left to allow more space on the right). This had the net effect that they turned into the road at a much shallower angle than they might have if they had been proceeding along the the road.

    Correct


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    Please tell me this is a joke and these people are not on the road, either walking, car or bike

    By "these people" you mean me? No, it's a genuine question; I have always thought you were supposed to stop, even when the pedestrian crossing was empty, if the light was red. Someone told me otherwise, and I'm asking for the information. Abuse is nice too, though, thank you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,173 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Rechuchote wrote: »
    By "these people" you mean me? No, it's a genuine question; I have always thought you were supposed to stop, even when the pedestrian crossing was empty, if the light was red. Someone told me otherwise, and I'm asking for the information. Abuse is nice too, though, thank you.

    In some countries, you can turn left through a pedestrian green light if there are no pedestrians. Not this one.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,778 ✭✭✭cython


    That is more or less how I read it the first time, in which case, the driver should have been indicating right, not left ... and, of course, taking extra care to ensure that they had full situation awareness before starting an unorthodox manoeuvre. Even so, is it legal to use a junction in that way? Isn't it the same as crossing the white line to make a left turn? (which plenty of people do, for no good reason!)

    I don't know about the legality, but I will admit to having done the exact same in the car when it's quiet! However, I wouldn't agree that indicating right would be correct, as their first move is still to turn left into the roadway - had they indicated right and the OP passed on the left and been hit, we'd rightly be slating the driver here.

    For what it's worth, if I'm doing something like this, I don't do it in one fell swoop (nor has it been suggested the driver here attempted to that I've seen?), but rather I'll pull into the more secondary road and off the road I've been travelling on. I'll use the wide part at the mouth of the more minor road to swing the car around (i.e. off the major road), and stop when positioned to rejoin the main road. I might be somewhat misaligned/mispositioned to conventionally turn right back onto the main road, but only when off the major road would I consider indicating right. In turning into the junction mouth, it's a left indication, full stop, as I leave the road into the mouth of the road on the left.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,903 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    cython wrote: »
    I don't know about the legality, but I will admit to having done the exact same in the car when it's quiet! However, I wouldn't agree that indicating right would be correct, as their first move is still to turn left into the roadway - had they indicated right and the OP passed on the left and been hit, we'd rightly be slating the driver here.


    My more recent Rules of the Road training is related to driving HGVs, in which case you indicate RIGHT then pull LEFT to complete the RIGHT turn into a side road, or vice versa when turning left. When there is no possibility of using the full width of the side road, this is considered normal (and the reason the RoR tell motorists not to try passing a large vehicle on either side if it is indicating one way or the other).


    With regard to the OPs situation, I would argue that the motorist indicating and moving left when they subsequently declared that it had been their intention to (U-)turn to the right even though the road was not wide enough to allow such a manoeuvre would constitute liability. They were neither pulling in to the kerb nor executing a normal left turn, and gave the OP the "wrong" information on which to base his decision.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,778 ✭✭✭cython


    My more recent Rules of the Road training is related to driving HGVs, in which case you indicate RIGHT then pull LEFT to complete the RIGHT turn into a side road, or vice versa when turning left. When there is no possibility of using the full width of the side road, this is considered normal (and the reason the RoR tell motorists not to try passing a large vehicle on either side if it is indicating one way or the other).
    A key difference here is that you are not leaving the road/carriageway as part of either of those manoeuvres. Now perhaps the driver in this scenario also intended not to fully leave the road, in which case I think that's the root of the problem, rather than just their signals. With an HGV most people are also more aware of the need for different approaches as you describe. I certainly wouldn't drive a car in that way and expect people to know what I was at.
    With regard to the OPs situation, I would argue that the motorist indicating and moving left when they subsequently declared that it had been their intention to (U-)turn to the right even though the road was not wide enough to allow such a manoeuvre would constitute liability. They were neither pulling in to the kerb nor executing a normal left turn, and gave the OP the "wrong" information on which to base his decision.
    Unless the OP got hit by overtaking to the right of the vehicle (which was not described) this is simply finding fault with the driver, rather than identifying anything that contributed to the collision. As far as I can tell while the driver had an eventual intention of turning right, or swinging around in the roadway, they didn't get the chance to do this, so the indication was not wrong or inaccurate in the context of any of the manoeuvre that they got a chance to perform.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Hi all, updating this only now as guards took months to get back to me and i'd forgotten about the thread in the meantime and stumbled back across it tonight.

    So i stopped posting at the time as i wasn't sure it was a good idea pending any legal repercussions, which really only hit home when i was advised of my rights and cautioned about relying on evidence when giving my statement a couple of days later (never having given one before). Also things took a bit of a sinister turn as there was a toddler in the back seat of the car, and unbeknownst to me at the time (observed by my friend as i was talking to the guard at the scene), the driver was pointing out a cut to a finger of the toddler from the broken glass to another guard.

    Had nearly forgotten about the whole thing when the guard rang me, informing me that the super had decided there was no further action required, and the driver had claimed off their own insurance for the window. Reading into that i imagine the driver was told not to pursue further, and pretty much confirmed what i thought that i wasn't to blame. In reality i could have had their guts for garters, but i've never claimed nor been claimed against and plan to keep it that way.

    The knee is fine now, though was painful off and on for a couple of years, had a lump on the kneecap which GP advised was a bit of detached cartilage which thankfully has disappeared now, though still and probably will have a couple of 'dents' in the skin to remind me of the collision forever.

    Thankfully the whole incident hasn't affected my confidence on the road, it was just one of those freak occurrences.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the way i read it - if a car overtakes and then immediately brakes to left turn, that's a brake check. the usual rules about keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front don't apply if the driver of said vehicle themselves create the unsafe distance. so as above, hard to tell without seeing a video of the incident, to figure out quite how long after the overtake it was before they braked. but on the face of it; a driver overtaking another vehicle, knowing he or she going to brake and turn left immediately after, i'd place the ultimate cause on the driver.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭fat bloke


    The driver was a complete bellend to overtake ye at all if he was turning left just up ahead. That's the kind of thoughtless sh1t that cyclists have to put up with from drivers all the time and it clearly created the dangerous situation and the incident that followed.

    Unfortunately, once he was in front it then became your responsibility to not hit him :(

    So had luck dude. As a matter of interest what kind of bike and brakes are we talking about? It's not the easiest thing to do to flip your bike with a handful of front brake.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Squatman


    Theres an argument to be made that your friend caused the full thing. He was not entitled to undertake unless he was in a cycle lane - (the lack of reference leads me to believer there is no cycle lane) The distance he indicated away from the junction, whilst small, may well be proportional to the speed involved. Prior to the accidnet, you yourself were about to make an illegal undertaking. Take your scolding, and pay for damages. Driver is innocent. sounds like cyclists left their brains at home before they put the lycra on!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Squatman


    no. the OP wasnt cycling with due care and attention. The car driver responded to the hazard presented by the first dumbo undertaking.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    He was not entitled to undertake unless he was in a cycle lane

    please cite the relevant law stating this.

    if you want, start with this and find the law which contradicts their lack of mention of cycle lanes for overtaking on the left

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/cycling/cycling_offences.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    Do people just replay to threads after only reading first post.

    Thread is from 2018, OP revived it in 2022 by posting details of what the outcome was, Thanks OP

    People respond as though OP's most recent post doesn't exist.

    I get not reading through all posts but at least read the last one or two to see what the most recent update is.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭MojoMaker




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭fat bloke


    Whoops! Guilty as charged.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,015 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    A common sense approach on the road can sometimes mean as much as the rules of the road.

    Let the bigger guy in front make his move. Slow down. Wait. Patience.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,515 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Unfortunately, once he was in front it then became your responsibility to not hit him :(

    i think there's a bit more nuance than that - if someone pulls into the clear space you had maintained in front of you, they are the ones who have created the dangerous gap, and not you. i don't know if the law would reflect that subtlety, and without video footage, it's going to be very difficult to prove it wasn't a straightforward rear ending.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,377 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Well this is a whole world of incorrect, overtaking on the left is completely legal for bicycles

    Weirdly the OPs reply wasn't there when I opened the thread, the new site seems to be annoyingly weird with some new posts temporarily being doubled and others not actually appearing (for me anyway) for awhile after.

    Not sure you could have had his guts for garters, as many have said, not enough details given but without anymore detail, there was potential for the Super to direct a FPN against you (had it done to me for a collision that was my fault, guy in front of the car I was behind brake checked him, he dropped anchor and my brakes chose this moment not to be as good as normal. Hit the car at walking speed but the back window exploded even though the force I put on it would have been equivalent to leaning against it lightly). Most insurers will just cover the windscreen as its covered under fully comp for free (at least the 1st one) and to get the costs and arrange payment, with the risk you would fight it, it's cheaper just not too. Be under no illusion, insurance companies won't fight something if it will be cheaper to just pay on balance, even if their client is 100% in the right.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Squatman


    Thanks for that richard head, made it very easy to fully discredit you - see below


    However as a cyclist you cannot overtake on the inside if the vehicle you intend to overtake:

    • Is signalling an intention to turn to the left and will move to the left before you overtake it




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    He got away with **** driving and you got away with slamming into the back of him and damaging his car, all well that ends well



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Yep pretty much, though may have been different if i hadn't been able to walk away.

    They were young, unfamiliar with the area, maybe late for something they were meant to attend and mind was elsewhere, so happy to forgive and forget.

    Having to put in a claim on their insurance hopefully made them a more conscious and courteous driver.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,055 ✭✭✭standardg60


    105 rims, funny given the other thread on rim brakes. I have them tuned to only lock the wheel when fully depressed, so goes to show what effect a 'death grip' has!

    They probably saved me from going through the back window, as the momentum of the bike threw me right over the car. I still have no idea how the SPDs released so easily, but they did.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,869 ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    But that's not what happened if you've read the op. The cycle lane is also a separate lane so that vehicle has to treat traffic there (IE bikes) as it would a car on its inside lane



  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    You've nothing to forgive, but the driver of the car has, he may have felt bad about it so took it upon himself to fix it but ultimately you're the 1 on the wrong, if you hadn't walked away you'd still be in the wrong because you hit him from behind



  • Advertisement
Advertisement