Cyclist crashed into my car

Scottie99

Because he sounds like a bit of a twit, I think you should pursue him. Teach him a lesson!:D

B00MSTICK

Fair play to you for not going after damages, hopefully if you ever have a little tip with someone else the genrosity will come back to you.

He could well have been in shock, I know I wouldn't act rationally if it were me!

TimAllen

micmclo wrote: »

Cyclists travel at speed and it's safer to be on the road then on a cycle lane which is level with a footpath.
Because pedestrians will wander into the cycle lane either through lack of knowledge and sinage or maybe they don't care.
Either way, it's easier to overtake (or undertake) a que of cars then avoid pedestrains.

And often cycle lanes are unusable anyway.
Conyham (sp?) Dublin 8 (think it's Dublin 8 though Dublin north) is a wide and safe road and the cycle lane is on the footpath, it's pretty safe.

But cars park on it and NOBODY can use the footpath and pedestrians have to scramble on grass or walk on the road. :mad:
Happens near the rowing clubs

I'll stick to the road and avoid the cycle lanes Tim Allen and if that bothers you I'd suggest one day this week you go for a cycle around your area.
Gives you a new perspective and skills you can use for driving

It doesnt bother me too much except for the fact that the law requires cyclists to use them and I think the law makes perfect sense in this case. Compliance with the law is another matter but it would appear that some cyclists feel its optional but that makes them law breakers.
It may bother you though if you were involved in a collision and found to be in breach of the law - its in situations like this that opting to disregard the law can end up costing you

xz

I am both a driver and a cyclist, and see no need to seperate cycle lanes from the road. Local councils in thier "wisdom" when putting cycle tracks on footpaths are generally not considering the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. More, get them off the road, it might quicken things up.
Would you like to "drive" on a road at footpath level, only to have it undulate every 10 feet because of the dips for peoples driveways.Believe me, this is "NOT SAFE".
As regards the cyclist running into you, Yes, he was at fault for not clearly looking where he was going, but , you as a motorist were clearly lacking the foresight to keep your vehicle in safe operational manner. Are there NO petrol stations near you.
You could easily have ran out of petrol slap bang in the middle of a DART crossing. Don't think the Guards would take your side if the DART hit you.( i know you would have had it pushed off) I am merely speculating.

You have had an argument with a cyclist on this thread, but your attitude of removing the cycle tracks from the road is not going to get you sympathy from cyclists, who have as much right to use them as motorists do.

MOtorists complain about being held up by cyclists, but said same cyclists often pass you out when you are stuck in traffic. A lot of motorists have zero patience, and not just with cyclists.

My commute to work is about 5 miles, sometimes I drive, sometimes, I cycle, most times it's quicker by bike

BostonB

There are 'mandatory cycle lanes' and 'non-mandatory cycle lanes' but AFAIK motorists are allowed to enter them and park in them. Thats the law. It you cycled into a stationary object, which was legally in a cycle lane you were in the wrong. That the inusrance company didn't know what they were doing and settled doesn't mean they or you were right.

If it was the other way around we'd have endless lawsuits with people deliberately cycling into parked cars.

There many arguments for and against sperate cycle lanes. But thats a completely different topic.

TimAllen

xz wrote: »

I am both a driver and a cyclist, and see no need to seperate cycle lanes from the road. Local councils in thier "wisdom" when putting cycle tracks on footpaths are generally not considering the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. More, get them off the road, it might quicken things up.
Would you like to "drive" on a road at footpath level, only to have it undulate every 10 feet because of the dips for peoples driveways.Believe me, this is "NOT SAFE".
As regards the cyclist running into you, Yes, he was at fault for not clearly looking where he was going, but , you as a motorist were clearly lacking the foresight to keep your vehicle in safe operational manner. Are there NO petrol stations near you.
You could easily have ran out of petrol slap bang in the middle of a DART crossing. Don't think the Guards would take your side if the DART hit you.( i know you would have had it pushed off) I am merely speculating.

You have had an argument with a cyclist on this thread, but your attitude of removing the cycle tracks from the road is not going to get you sympathy from cyclists, who have as much right to use them as motorists do.

MOtorists complain about being held up by cyclists, but said same cyclists often pass you out when you are stuck in traffic. A lot of motorists have zero patience, and not just with cyclists.

My commute to work is about 5 miles, sometimes I drive, sometimes, I cycle, most times it's quicker by bike

I have to disagree ... the law requires cyclists to use cycle tracks where they are provided, cyclists have no right to use the road in those circumstances

mikemac

TimAllen wrote: »

It doesnt bother me too much except for the fact that the law requires cyclists to use them and I think the law makes perfect sense in this case. Compliance with the law is another matter but it would appear that some cyclists feel its optional but that makes them law breakers.

short circuit wrote: »

Have a look here for the state of dublin cycle lanes.

Did you even look at this link and the shambles some of these are in?
If the law requires me to use them, hell yeah I'm a lawbreaker!

I agreed that cyclist was a fool to hit you but I reckon you've turned this into something else.
But hey, this is motors forum so not the place for that debate and i'll step aside.

Blackjack

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The noise and impact of this minor collision, possibly then, alerting the cyclist to avoid the car?

Why are warning triangles not compulsory (in Ireland) for cars?

What's the stopping distance for a cyclist with his head down going at full speed?.

How far should the warning triangle be placed behind the stricken vehicle in order to allow sufficient warning for a cyclist not watching where he's going to react in sufficient time to prevent ploughing into the back of a parked motor?.
10 ft?. 15 ft?.

How large should the triangle be in case the cyclist does not spot it (given he missed the looming vehicle, which was considerable larger than the generally available reflective triangle?.

Should the triangle be made of foam or an inflatable material in case the cyclist who has his head down not watching where he's going plough into the triangle as well?.

xz

Cycle tracks are sometimes located on footpaths, it is also illegal to cycle on the footpath, common sense prevails at times.Just by painting a white line on a footpath and saying you have to use that is hypocrisy, and double standards.

The third lane being installed on the M50 is an overtaking lane, it doesn't stop drivers driving solidly for miles on it, using the smart ass response of I was overtaking everything to my left won't cut it, just an example of bad driving habits.

We could go on for weeks about driver and cyclists flaws, and the rules of the road and the laws thereof,the simple fact of life, is, motorists do not 100% obey them, neither do cyclists.

BostonB

TimAllen wrote: »

It doesnt bother me too much except for the fact that the law requires cyclists to use them and I think the law makes perfect sense in this case. Compliance with the law is another matter but it would appear that some cyclists feel its optional but that makes them law breakers.
It may bother you though if you were involved in a collision and found to be in breach of the law - its in situations like this that opting to disregard the law can end up costing you

Unfortunately its often more dangerous to stay in the cycle lane than come out of it. If you don't cycle you're probably not away of it.

For example you in the cycle lane at lights, theres a van along side. You take off, the van hesitates. Someone jumps the lights, cuts across the junction from the opposite direction, doesn't see you because you're hidden by the van. The cyclist is best sitting in the middle of the lane in front of the van. So everyone can see them. It also prevent people who don't indicate , but sit at the lights, then suddenly turn left into the cyclists.

Everyone needs to be considerate of everyone else. End of.

TimAllen

xz wrote: »

Cycle tracks are sometimes located on footpaths, it is also illegal to cycle on the footpath, common sense prevails at times.Just by painting a white line on a footpath and saying you have to use that is hypocrisy, and double standards.

The third lane being installed on the M50 is an overtaking lane, it doesn't stop drivers driving solidly for miles on it, using the smart ass response of I was overtaking everything to my left won't cut it

you should probably take this up with your local td. Its a legislative issue as the law is quite clear regarding the use of cycle tracks.
Perhaps some improvements are desirable but it really baffles me to see a cyclist in a bus lans effectively holding up a full double decker with maybe 70 people on board at rush hour and a pperfectly good cycle track right be side him - saw a cop on a motorcycle take him aside - dont know what happened though, probably got told to use the track and stop being a tit!

BostonB

What might seem a perfectly good cycle lane to a drive might not be from a cyclist point of view. Some of the cycle lanes in my local area were poorly constructed and are rippled, so you can't cycle on them as it shakes you to bits. Also they don't grit cycle lanes, and generally all the road debris gets swept into them. So lots of reasons that aren't obvious why you might have to move out of them. Though there are some who deliberately stay out of them on a point of principle, some believing they are safer out of them.

xz

TimAllen wrote: »

you should probably take this up with your local td. Its a legislative issue as the law is quite clear regarding the use of cycle tracks.
Perhaps some improvements are desirable but it really baffles me to see a cyclist in a bus lans effectively holding up a full double decker with maybe 70 people on board at rush hour and a pperfectly good cycle track right be side him - saw a cop on a motorcycle take him aside - dont know what happened though, probably got told to use the track and stop being a tit!

and your opinion on the legallity of driving for miles in an overtaking lane, or for that matter, the none use of indicators at roundabouts.
You are not getting my point, you seem blinkered to the cyclist issue.

I guarantee if the people who wrote the legislation on cycle tracks had to cycle on them for one month, the Law would change.Just because something is written legislation does not make it correct.
Yes, if a "perfectly good" cycle track as you put it is provided, then I will use it, but unfortunately a lot of them are poorly situated and dangerous, both to me and others, so in that case, no, I wont use it.

Would you, given 2 routes, the exact same distance from point A to point B
One having perfect road surface, nicely laid out, well marked.
The other, potholes, no road markings.
Which one are you going to take, because unfortunately, this is the kind of dilemma facing most cyclists in and around the Greater Dublin area.

short circuit

TimAllen wrote: »

you should probably take this up with your local td. Its a legislative issue as the law is quite clear regarding the use of cycle tracks.
Perhaps some improvements are desirable but it really baffles me to see a cyclist in a bus lans effectively holding up a full double decker with maybe 70 people on board at rush hour and a pperfectly good cycle track right be side him - saw a cop on a motorcycle take him aside - dont know what happened though, probably got told to use the track and stop being a tit!

Maybe this is what the cyclist thought ... as the cycle lane was supposed to be his as per his local td ... he didn't anticipate a motorist to park his car there ... perhaps you should have just pushed your car to the edge of the car lane .. and not into the cycle lane.

As things stand .. its really a non contest for me between being on the road and safe .. or using the cycle lane and playing russian roulette with pedestrians, cars pulling out of driveways, vehicles turning right on the blind .. or left across cycle lane .. lamp posts, dust bins, trees in between cycle lanes ... or for that matter .. motorists who are just running to the shop ... or motorists who run out of petrol parking there.

While I am cycling on the road, I will be considerate to other road users .. and where safe for me .. I will move aside and let you pass. And if you are inconsiderate and cause any danger to my life .. I will get your reg. and report to the gardi.

If its illegal .. so be it .. atleast I will be alive

xz

Oh, and the fact that a motorist can complain about my(as a cyclists) use of the road when there are cycle tracks provided and I should use them, can "legally" encroach onto whilst driving, or even park on (most) of them and then proceed to lecture me to use them, when I have been forced onto the road by car(s) on the cycle track. Motorists get it everyway.

BTW I do drive, I am just being constructive here, maybe negative in some peoples opinions.

BUt like I said earlier, there are both bad drivers and cyclists

311

I could see a select few drivers knocking that cyclist out ,for doing this.

What if there was an open hole in the road ,with cones around it.

CheGuedara

short circuit wrote: »

Maybe this is what the cyclist thought ... as the cycle lane was supposed to be his as per his local td ... he didn't anticipate a motorist to park his car there ... perhaps you should have just pushed your car to the edge of the car lane .. and not into the cycle lane.

As things stand .. its really a non contest for me between being on the road and safe .. or using the cycle lane and playing russian roulette with pedestrians, cars pulling out of driveways, vehicles turning right on the blind .. or left across cycle lane .. lamp posts, dust bins, trees in between cycle lanes ... or for that matter .. motorists who are just running to the shop ... or motorists who run out of petrol parking there.

While I am cycling on the road, I will be considerate to other road users .. and where safe for me .. I will move aside and let you pass. And if you are inconsiderate and cause any danger to my life .. I will get your reg. and report to the gardi.

If its illegal .. so be it .. atleast I will be alive

+1

xz

While I sympathise with what happened Tim. You were "legally" parked (hopefully on a broken line cycle track, because it's illegal to park on continuos lined ones), and had your hazards on,and checked the welfare of said cyclist, also took abuse from him.
You just seem blinkered to the fact, that cyclists have rights too.
You just want them OFF the road and out of your way.
So, while I sympathise with your original post, your subsequent "arguments" have belied the fact that there is a them and us attitude between motorists and cyclists (don't know where that leaves me as both:D) and you won't get sympathy for them views from cyclists, but as for the OP, yes, you will.
BUt I suspect this was intended as a cyclist bashing thread.

xz

311 wrote: »

I could see a select few drivers knocking that cyclist out ,for doing this.

What if there was an open hole in the road ,with cones around it.

What makes you think a driver CAN knock a cyclist out, and for doing "what" exactly

311

Some people can knock anyone out if they punch them.

xz

For what exactly?

PeakOutput

bAd wrote: »

Sorry I have to disagree with the others.
You allowed your car to run out of petrol and then proceded to block a cycle lane. Cyclists shouldn't have to expect clapped-out old bangers in their way.
I think you would have been wise to offer to pay half the damages.

This happened to me only difference was the car was parked on the cycle lane. I requested the owner of the car pay for my doctor's fees & xray - she refused. Let's just say it ended up costing her a hell of a lot more after I threatened to sue - her insurance settled.

grand she shouldnt of been there BUT

1. even if the car was parked unless your blind you have no excuse to not to see it

2. you were completely liable (it is your resposibility to be able t react to hazards of any kind) for this accident rightly or wrongly there was no reason for the insurance company to give you anything

3. because of the above reasons you are either very very lucky or just lying

311

xz wrote: »

For what exactly?

I think your confusing me with someone who doesn't cycle and doesn't drive.
The person who caused the damage to the O.P's car ,is clearly an agressive and violent person. It wasn't enough that he ploughed into the back of someones car ,but he has the gawl to accuse the driver of negligence (Obviously the cyclist thought the guy had just parked there).

Instead of trying to communicate with the driver ,the bloke causes trouble. There are plenty of people out there who would have knocked that guy out ,once he started getting agressive.

cps_goodbuy

xz wrote: »

What makes you think a driver CAN knock a cyclist out, and for doing "what" exactly

"Face Palm" jeez the amount of hissy bitch talk in this thread is just astounding...



Anyhow, hardshoulder/bikelane thus car is parked legally

OP did put in place hazard measures available to him, hazard lights

Triangle is not required according to legislation thus can be discounted.

Running out of petrol isn't really an issue in my opinion, he could have easily broken down. OP took the necessary action once it happened.

Cyclist was riding without paying due concern to his surroundings (any road,lane,path etc user should)

Maybe I feel we as a community do not have the necessary cultural upbringing with regard to road use etc - take sweden (who take driving very seriously) germany (where pedestrians can be fined etc for inproper raod use), italy (where in amongst the turmoil road users seem to have struck a blance )

Edit: and for any more members who'd like to take a swipe at me, you little bitchs, may I make it perfectly clear to you, yes, I indeed made a typo, I actually meant to type "road"

xz

Or maybe there are plenty of people who could have tried and ended getting knocked out themselves, if he was of an aggresive nature, as you said.
Meeting aggresiveness with more could get the retorter hurt more than the originator

just an opinion:D

xz

cps_goodbuy wrote: »

"Face Palm" jeez the amount of hissy bitch talk in this thread is just astounding...



Anyhow, hardshoulder/bikelane thus car is parked legally

OP did put in place hazard measures available to him, hazard lights

Triangle is not required according to legislation thus can be discounted.

Running out of petrol isn't really an issue in my opinion, he could have easily broken down. OP took the necessary action once it happened.

Cyclist was riding without paying due concern to his surroundings (any road,lane,path etc user should)

Maybe I feel we as a community do not have the necessary cultural upbringing with regard to road use etc - take sweden (who take driving very seriously) germany (where pedestrians can be fined etc for inproper raod use), italy (where in amongst the turmoil road users seem to have struck a blance )

Um, did you read the whole thread? no one has disputed the above facts mentioned, apart from running out of petrol is an issue, because unlike, breaking down, running out of petrol is 100% avoidable

cps_goodbuy

xz wrote: »

Um, did you read the whole thread? no one has disputed the above facts mentioned, apart from running out of petrol is an issue, because unlike, breaking down, running out of petrol is 100% avoidable

I did just summerising the facts for peeps skiping the arguments

and yeah running out of fuel is definitely avoidable and a silly mistake. My opinion on it was in respect to the legal aspects as it wasn't on a motorway.

rubadub

TimAllen wrote: »

Im not looking for a cyclist perspective - just the thoughts of my fellow motorists

Ah the healthy us & them attitude. You do realise that they are not mutually exlusive species? I imagine the majority of adults who have the use of a bike also have the use of a car. They are PEOPLE.

JackFrosty wrote: »

i think cyclists should have to have insurance and pay road tax, why not as they use the same roads as us and we pay for cycle lanes they dont use cycling with his head down now thats funny

Where did you come up with this idea? There is no road tax as mentioned, but when you paid your motor tax did you really get a breakdown of what it paid for? I certainly didn't...
And what about pedestrians, oh! I expect they do not fall into the bitter little us & them arguments, since more people who pay motor tax are also pedestrians, just like I expect most people who own a bike also pay motor tax. Pedestrians use the road and are by far the biggest violators of road laws.

JackFrosty wrote: »

my point is cyclists are the only road users who are not insured and would,nt it be better for everyone if they were

Pesdestrians are not insured, I am not sure about horse & traps or regular horse riders either. Obviously those in power do not think it would be better for everyone. Perhaps write to your TD.

BostonB wrote: »

There are 'mandatory cycle lanes' and 'non-mandatory cycle lanes' but AFAIK motorists are allowed to enter them and park in them. Thats the law.

There is no road tax, and no cycle lanes. There are cycletracks, and cycleways. Most people are ignorant of the rules of the roads and do not know what either is or the legal rights of what can and cannot be done in them.

The guy in the OP was an idiot, that would be like a taximan ramming a car parked in the bus lane and saying he never saw them.

Pete4779

TimAllen wrote: »

There seems to be some fairly militant cyclists out there.... anyone with similar experiences?

It's not that cyclists are particularly militant - more than drivers. When you are cycling, you are excercising and getting adrenaline going, and are in much more heightened state than someone sitting in a car. The cyclist is at a high energy level, the car driver is semi-comatose (in dublin traffic anyway!).

cyclopath2001

BostonB wrote: »

There are 'mandatory cycle lanes' and 'non-mandatory cycle lanes' but AFAIK motorists are allowed to enter them and park in them. Thats the law.

True, but, also according to the law, only if the parking does not pose a hazard to others or interfere with the ordinary flow of traffic.

The big conundrum is, if use of cycle tracks by cyclists is obligatory for 'safety reasons', how can the authorities justify permitting parking on them?

As to the subject of this thread. The big point is to recognise that all accidents are composed of contributory factors from both parties. In my opinion, the cyclist bears the bulk of the blame, sufficient that any lawyer taking his business would probably look for money up front.