Accident

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 9:42pm #1

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.

Any advice or opinions welcome..

jimbobaloobob · 19-05-2018 9:44pm

Have you notified the guards and got a reg and details?

ccmp · 19-05-2018 9:58pm

Sorry but it reads like this to an observer.
Regardless of what went before, You went to undertake a car and hit him from behind.

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 10:00pm

Sorry should have said they rang the guards, but moved the car before consulting me and before they arrived.
First thing the guard said to me was that they had their indicator on..
I've yet to make a statement, was a bit shook up at the time so only really coming to terms with it now.

jimbobaloobob · 19-05-2018 10:04pm

Did you get the 1.5m space or does that come into it?

ED E · 19-05-2018 10:06pm

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Did you get the 1.5m space or does that come into it?

Not important, he rear ended the car.

circular flexing · 19-05-2018 10:09pm

The driver made a couple of mistakes (overtaking near a speed ramp, not seeing your friend until late) but unfortunately it's 100% your fault that you rear ended the car.

rushfan · 19-05-2018 10:17pm

standardg60 wrote:

Sorry should have said they rang the guards, but moved the car before consulting me and before they arrived. First thing the guard said to me was that they had their indicator on.. I've yet to make a statement, was a bit shook up at the time so only really coming to terms with it now.

And how did the guard know that the driver had the indicator on????

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 10:17pm

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Did you get the 1.5m space or does that come into it?

It was a 50km zone so a metre is suggested..the car edged in to less than half of that. I probably could have squeezed through but having no way of knowing whether the driver was going to continue with the manoeuvre there was no way I was going into that space

jimbobaloobob · 19-05-2018 10:18pm

Where were you planning to go by squeezing through?

Weepsie · 19-05-2018 10:23pm

Insurance purposes you're liable.

However, I'd be informing their insurance company of their dangerous/poor driving and making sure they're aware of the accident too.

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 10:24pm

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.

RacoonQueen · 19-05-2018 10:24pm

I don't really understand. The car was stopped by the time the collision occurred? where was your friend at this stage? And where did it happen? With speed ramps it sounds like you could have been urban and they could have been trying to left hook you but it's not really overly clear from your post.

Weepsie · 19-05-2018 10:26pm

ccmp wrote: »

Sorry but it reads like this to an observer.
Regardless of what went before, You went to undertake a car and hit him from behind.

It's not undertaking. It's overtaking on the left. It's an important distinction and I think is legislated for.

Also, it sounds as though he was behind the car, waiting for it to turn, but it didn't.

But again, you're liable as you've gone into the back.

Now if they had just passed you and then instantly stopped, they'd probably be told where to go and have some serious questions to answer themselves but doesn't sound the case.

Weepsie · 19-05-2018 10:29pm

standardg60 wrote: »

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.

If the car was ahead of you when indicating, I think you should be giving way to then to turn unless you're in a separate lane. Space means nothing if your in the same lane, but just to to the left.

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 10:29pm

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Where were you planning to go by squeezing through?

I was going straight..they were turning left, my friend was already in the junction so he had enough room on his left. I hadn't reached the junction so that was the gap between the car and the kerb.

circular flexing · 19-05-2018 10:30pm

standardg60 wrote: »

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.

As mentioned, rear endings are 100% the fault of the person who was behind, there is no discussion about that.

In your case, I think the onus is on you to be aware of your surroundings. I don't know the junction in question but when I do see junctions ahead I assume that any cars in my vicinity are going to take them (particularly left hand turns) and I adjust accordingly. It's defensive cycling 101.

jimbobaloobob · 19-05-2018 10:33pm

standardg60 wrote: »

I was going straight..they were turning left, my friend was already in the junction so he had enough room on his left. I hadn't reached the junction so that was the gap between the car and the kerb.

Sorry OP but if you had intended to go straight on and go up the left your in the wrong. I wish you well and glad your not injured.

denismc · 19-05-2018 10:34pm

standardg60 wrote:

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.

If he was in front of you when he indicated and you were not in a cycle lane then yes he has right of way.

magicbastarder · 19-05-2018 10:42pm

circular flexing wrote: »

As mentioned, rear endings are 100% the fault of the person who was behind, there is no discussion about that.

not if the car overtakes and then slams on, if i understand correctly. but it's not clear if this is what happened above.
regardless of legalities, to overtake a cyclist while planning to make a left turn just past the cyclist is a dick move, even if that might not help you legally.

circular flexing · 19-05-2018 10:48pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

not if the car overtakes and then slams on, if i understand correctly. but it's not clear if this is what happened above.

It is assumed to be the fault of the person behind, it would then be up to that person to prove otherwise (in my experience).

regardless of legalities, to overtake a cyclist while planning to make a left turn just past the cyclist is a dick move, even if that might not help you legally.

Agreed.

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 10:50pm

Wide road, we were going approx. 20km per hour, car on outside, minor road to left, no lights etc.
Car indicates to take left 20ft before turn, friend level with car, me 2 metres behind, car veers in to take turn,spots my friend and stops.
My friend has enough room, I don't.

how.gareth · 19-05-2018 10:54pm

standardg60 wrote: »

Wide road, we were going approx. 20km per hour, car on outside, minor road to left, no lights etc.
Car indicates to take left 20ft before turn, friend level with car, me 2 metres behind, car veers in to take turn,spots my friend and stops.
My friend has enough room, I don't.

It kind of sounds like you saw what was going to happen but didn’t do enough to avoid it

jon1981 · 19-05-2018 10:56pm

Sounds like he overtook you too close to the turn, didnt spot your friend, jammed on to avoid him and left you with little options but to hope your brakes stopped you in time.

I'd put 70% blame on the car. I think you could have avoided it too by reading the situation earlier but id call what he did dangerous driving.

magicbastarder · 19-05-2018 10:56pm

circular flexing wrote: »

It is assumed to be the fault of the person behind, it would then be up to that person to prove otherwise (in my experience).

well, let's look at it this way. speaking hypothetically for now, this is not necessarily a comment on the above.
in what circumstance could a cyclist get close enough to rear end a car, in a situation where it might be expected that the cyclist was doing 25-30km/h, and the car was doing 50km/h?
the above implies that the car must have very recently performed an overtake; that much is easy enough to assume.
that said, i've been in a situation where i rear ended a car in vaguely similar circumstances and took the incident (both literally and figuratively) on the chin.

estariol · 19-05-2018 10:58pm

Weepsie wrote: »

Insurance purposes you're liable.

However, I'd be informing their insurance company of their dangerous/poor driving and making sure they're aware of the accident too.

Wan't to elaborate on how that works??

That seems to be a meaningless catchall statement people seem to throw around, liability is never that simple. I'm in a similar situation to the op in that I went through the rear window of a car that emergency braked when a football came in to the road.
I'm still unsure how it will pan out but I would be surprised if the car drivers insurance company came after me for the cost of a rear window.

fritzelly · 19-05-2018 11:03pm

If you were 2 metres behind your mate how could you have gone into the back of him?
Something doesn't add up.
If the car is indicating and you are behind you should be letting him turn and go on the right.

how.gareth · 19-05-2018 11:03pm

estariol wrote: »

Wan't to elaborate on how that works??

That seems to be a meaningless catchall statement people seem to throw around, liability is never that simple. I'm in a similar situation to the op in that I went through the rear window of a car that emergency braked when a football came in to the road.
I'm still unsure how it will pan out but I would be surprised if the car drivers insurance company came after me for the cost of a rear window.

If I skidded to avoid a football and a cyclist came through my back window as a result I would certainly not be claiming off the poor fecker regardless of who was at fault

ct5amr2ig1nfhp · 19-05-2018 11:05pm

This is simply not true. It depends on the situation.

I have had someone left hook me and I ran into the back of him. "100%" the fault of the driver. :rolleyes:

I have also had someone reverse into me at a set of traffic lights. Not a rear ending but he claimed i hit him. Thankfully I had witnesses. It was actually after this incident I decided to get a cam for the bike.

circular flexing wrote: »

As mentioned, rear endings are 100% the fault of the person who was behind, there is no discussion about that.
...

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 11:13pm

The driver stated that they were intending on doing a U-turn in the junction and were unfamiliar with the area, so could have only indicated when they saw that it was suitable. If they'd indicated earlier I would have kept well back.
Even though they'd just overtaken us they had no idea we were there, my friend would have been creamed had he not been further forward and in the drivers eyeline.
Is it not part of the rules of the road to check mirrors before commencing any manoeuvre?

standardg60 · 19-05-2018 11:34pm

fritzelly wrote: »

If you were 2 metres behind your mate how could you have gone into the back of him?
Something doesn't add up.
If the car is indicating and you are behind you should be letting him turn and go on the right.

I was 2 metres behind the car at 20km per hour..we never changed speed, car overtook us at 30, slowed for ramp at which point we caught up, car was at least 1 metre outside us at this stage. All then travelling at 20 after ramp, friend upsides car and me two metres behind, so three to four behind my friend.
Car then indicates and begins to move in decreasing gap, slowing so friend goes by, spots friend then and jams on.
At the same time i'm deciding whether to try and squeeze through an ever decreasing gap and go under a turning car or run into the back of them.

circular flexing · 19-05-2018 11:39pm

standardg60 wrote: »

I was 2 metres behind the car at 20km per hour..we never changed speed, car overtook us at 30, slowed for ramp at which point we caught up, car was at least 1 metre outside us at this stage. All then travelling at 20 after ramp, friend upsides car and me two metres behind, so three to four behind my friend.
Car then indicates and begins to move in decreasing gap, slowing so friend goes by, spots friend then and jams on.
At the same time i'm deciding whether to try and squeeze through an ever decreasing gap and go under a turning car or run into the back of them.

You could have pulled in behind the car after it had overtaken and then when it went to make the left turn, you could have swung around the right hand side of it instead. Going up or ending up the inside of a car (particularly close to a junction) is madness, imo. In this case I don't really car what the rules of the road are, I'm the more vulnerable road user and I need to take account of that.

magicbastarder · 19-05-2018 11:45pm

circular flexing wrote: »

You could have pulled in behind the car after it had overtaken and then when it went to make the left turn, you could have swung around the right hand side of it instead.

i'm possibly misreading the story - but the OP caught up with the car because it had reached a speed ramp; not because it was slowing and indicating for a left turn. an overtake of a car on the right because it has reached a speed ramp is not a manouevre which you'd normally expect to have to perform.

the motorist appeared to have decided to turn left and indicate so *after* the cyclists caught up with him or her.

fritzelly · 19-05-2018 11:47pm

Deciding whether to go thru an ever decreasing gap

Why???

circular flexing · 19-05-2018 11:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm possibly misreading the story - but the OP caught up with the car because it had reached a speed ramp; not because it was slowing and indicating for a left turn. an overtake of a car on the right because it has reached a speed ramp is not a manouevre which you'd normally expect to have to perform.

Correct I meant an overtake on the right after the car had indicated left turn and possibly started the left turn manouevre .

In any case, my point is that as soon as car comes to overtake me (even if there's a speed ramp) I usually tap the brakes and let the car go ahead. It's just safer (imo).

standardg60 · 20-05-2018 12:07am

circular flexing wrote: »

You could have pulled in behind the car after it had overtaken and then when it went to make the left turn, you could have swung around the right hand side of it instead. Going up or ending up the inside of a car (particularly close to a junction) is madness, imo. In this case I don't really car what the rules of the road are, I'm the more vulnerable road user and I need to take account of that.

You don't seem to understand, this was a suburban road with free flowing traffic passing at all times, there are no lights, so you keep to the inside.

circular flexing · 20-05-2018 12:15am

standardg60 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand, this was a suburban road with free flowing traffic passing at all times, there are no lights, so you keep to the inside.

No I understand well and am in the same situation on a daily basis (I commute a long a road that has a number of speed ramps). Taking the lane and not keeping to the edge is the safest way to cycle on these roads (ime).

beauf · 20-05-2018 1:13am

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm possibly misreading the story - but the OP caught up with the car because it had reached a speed ramp; not because it was slowing and indicating for a left turn. an overtake of a car on the right because it has reached a speed ramp is not a manouevre which you'd normally expect to have to perform.

the motorist appeared to have decided to turn left and indicate so *after* the cyclists caught up with him or her.

I don't think they would be expecting a cyclist to undertake at a speed ramp or to have caught up. As a cyclist I wouldn't undertake a car coming up to a left except very slowly. The driver should leave more room and be more aware, as indeed the cyclists anticipation could have been better.

Sorry the OP got hurt, glad its not serious. But rather than do the blame game I think there's a lot for all parties to learn from this. Slight miss judgement from everyone.

beauf · 20-05-2018 1:16am

standardg60 wrote: »

You don't seem to understand, this was a suburban road with free flowing traffic passing at all times, there are no lights, so you keep to the inside.

Sounds like one of those roads where you need to a bit more careful.

As a cyclist, I find suburb roads, have some of the worst drivers on them. Therefore I'm expecting the worst.

Rechuchote · 20-05-2018 10:18am

ED E wrote: »

Not important, he rear ended the car.

Honestly, this sounds to me like drastic, inattentive driving.

OP had a choice, whether to crash into another person on a bicycle or into the car - not enough room to stop after the car came swerving in - and chose the car. This could've been a fatal crash if s/he had taken the other choice.

Lumen · 20-05-2018 10:50am

If we strip out the speed ramp and other cyclist, we get (I think):

- Car overtakes cyclist just before slamming on brakes to turn left.
- Cyclist fails to match the braking of the car, crashes into rear of car.

Clearly it is bad driving to overtake anything immediately before a left turn, but bicycles are well known to have poorer braking performance than cars so the driver is being particularly irresponsible/clueless. And that's even ignoring the vulnerability of the cyclist which warrants a greater degree of care.

What is the cyclist supposed to do? Brake every time they get overtaken in case the car slams on the brakes?

edit: having said that, if the bike was going fast enough at the point of collision to break the rear window, there was probably an element of inattention on the part of the OP. The braking differential isn't that bad.

RacoonQueen · 20-05-2018 10:59am

Probably a shared liability situation really. The driver shouldn't have overtaken and then gone to turn left straight away unless they knew they could clear you both. Sounds like they weren't paying attention though as they hadn't even seen you both before/during their overtake and admit that they were lost(?), based on the story, so sounds like they were focused on finding somewhere to turn and not actually paying attention to what else was going on around them.

magicbastarder · 20-05-2018 11:05am

Lumen wrote: »

but bicycles are well known to have poorer braking performance than cars
...
The braking differential isn't that bad.

maybe i read it wrong, but i read that the brakes were *too* good:

My bike is already flipping as I hit the rear of the car

i read that as the bike flipped under braking, which would explain why it was high enough to smash the rear windscreen.

Glass fused light · 20-05-2018 11:16am

Lumen wrote: »

If we strip out the speed ramp and other cyclist, we get (I think):

Do cyclists cycling in single file normally aim to go over the ramps or do they aim to use the gap between the ramp and the pavement?

TheChizler · 20-05-2018 11:25am

To me it sounds like a car overtook, slowed down, and in quick succession indicated, moved left, and slammed on without leaving the OP sufficient gap to stop before they drew level with the car. I don't know how the OP could get any blame for that.

Their companion only got away without incident because they had started to overtake on the left when the car originally slowed down and the driver saw them. The OP had no such luxury.

Lumen · 20-05-2018 1:07pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe i read it wrong, but i read that the brakes were *too* good:

i read that as the bike flipped under braking, which would explain why it was high enough to smash the rear windscreen.

Poor braking, not poorer brakes. As in slowing down the bike, not slowing down the wheel.

Wishbone Ash · 20-05-2018 1:44pm

Glass fused light wrote: »

Do cyclists cycling in single file normally aim to go over the ramps or do they aim to use the gap between the ramp and the pavement?

I'd go over the ramp - trying to squeeze between the end of the ramp and the kerb is an incident waiting to happen especially in the wet.

(If you're referring to speed cushions, I either go around them or over the top - depends on the scenario).

Pkiernan · 20-05-2018 1:57pm

standardg60 wrote: »

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.

Any advice or opinions welcome..

I hope you are ok.
The above reads to me that your friend decided to undertake the car on the left side when it slowed down. This is very unsafe cycling. You and your friend should have remained behind the car.

Kaisr Sose · 20-05-2018 1:58pm

Glass fused light wrote: »

Do cyclists cycling in single file normally aim to go over the ramps or do they aim to use the gap between the ramp and the pavement?

No clear cut policy for me. It depends on:
The height of the ramp
It’s condition, before, on and after
The surface (gap and condition) between it and kerb
Road surface-wet or dry
Volume of traffic

Kaisr Sose · 20-05-2018 2:10pm

standardg60 wrote: »

Sorry should have said they rang the guards, but moved the car before consulting me and before they arrived.
First thing the guard said to me was that they had their indicator on..
I've yet to make a statement, was a bit shook up at the time so only really coming to terms with it now.

Hope you are OK!

In my view, no motorist that is paying attention and being considerate of other more vulnerable road users should attempt to overtake, if their intention is to turn left, or stop very soon after overtaking. It happens too often though.

A car would not overtake another car or vehicle and then drop anchor or turn left so what makes it ‘OK’ to do this to a cyclist?

The motorist should cop on in this situation and realise their inatention/ poor driving put in train a series of events that led to this incident. Its chicken and egg stuff. Motorist is unlikely to agree.

Make your statement but Garda will be useless in a civil matter. Its no harm to get yourself a free consultation with a solicitor. The driver may be chancing their arm here. Get their insurance details (which are obligatory for the motorist to provide to Garda) and report incident to their insurance company. They will regard a potential claim as reason to note on the drivers record/file, and they may loose their NCB for being too stupid to realise or quit when they are ahead.

standardg60 · 20-05-2018 6:06pm

Thanks to all who took the time to read and post their observations..positive or negative all appreciated.

Knee was very swollen and stiff this morning but hopefully nothing a couple days rest won't sort out (I was able to cycle home afterwards).
On reflection things could have been a lot worse, speaking to my friend today we both agreed he was in the more vulnerable position, had he been slightly further back out of the driver's eyeline who knows what could have happened.

Just a note on the undertaking observation, he had passed back up to the inside as the car slowed for the ramp, not the turn, and before any indication was given, and the car was still well out in the road. We're not reckless, this was the first incident we've had in over five years of regular cycling.

Will update as to any outcomes.

Accident

Comments