Cyclist crashed into my car

Mr. Presentable

There's no way the motorist can have any contribution to the accident. Seriously, what if instead of a car it had been another cyclist? He still would have ploughed into him. Or a junction, pedestrian crossing etc. All road users have a duty of care. In the OPs case his vehicle was disabled and he did everything required of him to ensure safety of other road users.

The cyclist in question was operating without due care.

Yakult

if only there was a picture of him before the car you could make a demotive picture with the big words "FAIL" written down

TimAllen

xz wrote: »

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.

I will take your word for it that some cycle tracks are less than ideal but your analogy regarding two routes makes no mention of the key point I was making i.e. not taking the cycle track is illegal, so really the motoring analogy is
Route A - not ideal road surface, no competing traffic (safer) but legal
Route B - better surface more competing traffic but illegal

While I have no doubt that the level of compliance amongst motorists is high due to enforcement and the ease of identification (car reg), the fact remains that I encounter very little illegal driving on a day to day basis around Dublin. Every day I witness cyclists taking an a la carte attitude to the rulebook (from non use of cycle tracks to running red lights, including pedestrian lights).
From what I can see, especially on boards, a lot of cyclists appear to condone such rule breaking (even the alleged destruction of a motorists mirror gets the seal of approval). A much different compliance culture exists with motorists in comparison with cyclists. I base this on my own anecdotal observations as well as the posts of cyclists and motorists on this site

BostonB

TimAllen wrote: »

I ...While I have no doubt that the level of compliance amongst motorists is high due to enforcement and the ease of identification (car reg), the fact remains that I encounter very little illegal driving on a day to day basis around Dublin. Every day I witness cyclists taking an a la carte attitude to the rulebook (from non use of cycle tracks to running red lights, including pedestrian lights)....

You must drive in a different country to me. In Dublin there is little enforcement and I see illegal driving every 5 mins. Been like that for years. But its only (my guesstimates) about 10~30% of motorists depending on the scenerio. But I agree there is a far higher % more like 60% of cyclists cycle illegally, if thats the right term.

However its a mistake to put cycling through a red light on the same level as not staying in the cycle lane. Because its completely unrealistic and often dangerous to expect cyclists to always be in the cycle lane. Most people who don't cycle completely fail to take that onboard.

mikemac

TimAllen wrote: »

While I have no doubt that the level of compliance amongst motorists is high due to enforcement and the ease of identification (car reg), the fact remains that I encounter very little illegal driving on a day to day basis around Dublin.

Spend a week in motors forum and your opinion will soon change

cps_goodbuy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

As to the subject of this thread. The big point is to recognise that all accidents are composed of contributory factors from both parties.

um, as the second party has to be there for an accident to compose two parties, just being there is a "contributory factor" (contributory factor should not mean contributory blame or wrong on the second partys fault)

Um how about driving straight into a car in front of you in a row of traffic when party 1 is distracted by a pretty woman. second party (being the car in front) is being a contributory factor just by being there, 100% blame, wrong, etcetcetc on the 1st party.

I see bad driving, missinterpretation of situations on the road, incorrect procedure etc all the time, myself included, culture etc

tired of this thread..

cyclopath2001

TimAllen wrote: »

the fact remains that I encounter very little illegal driving on a day to day basis around Dublin.

Maybe my route is different to yours: On my route, I see lots of this stuff: not indicating, bus-lane incursions, speeding, illegal parking, amber/red light offences, stopping in box junctions, stopping on pedestrian crossings, driving/parking on footpaths illegal overtaking, use of handphones, missing headlamps/tail lamps/brake lights.

TimAllen

BostonB wrote: »

You must drive in a different country to me. In Dublin there is little enforcement and I see illegal driving every 5 mins. Been like that for years. But its only (my guesstimates) about 10~30% of motorists depending on the scenerio. But I agree there is a far higher % more like 60% of cyclists cycle illegally, if thats the right term.

However its a mistake to put cycling through a red light on the same level as not staying in the cycle lane. Because its completely unrealistic and often dangerous to expect cyclists to always be in the cycle lane. Most people who don't cycle completely fail to take that onboard.

obviously I have a different perspective but the cycle track issue doesnt require my perspective, it is prescribed by law that cyclists must use them. I find it disturbing that many cyclists appear to condone such rule breaking - if everyone took that attitude there would be anarchy out there.

TimAllen

cps_goodbuy wrote: »

um, as the second party has to be there for an accident to compose two parties, just being there is a "contributory factor" (contributory factor should not mean contributory blame or wrong on the second partys fault)

Um how about driving straight into a car in front of you in a row of traffic when party 1 is distracted by a pretty woman. second party (being the car in front) is being a contributory factor just by being there, 100% blame, wrong, etcetcetc on the 1st party.

I see bad driving, missinterpretation of situations on the road, incorrect procedure etc all the time, myself included, culture etc

tired of this thread..

I agree with what you said ... but, i am new to Boards, if you are tired of the thread why not just go to another one that better suits your mood rather than going to the bother of posting the fact that your tired on the thread?

cps_goodbuy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Maybe my route is different to yours: On my route, I see lots of this stuff: not indicating, bus-lane incursions, speeding, illegal parking, amber/red light offences, stopping in box junctions, stopping on pedestrian crossings, driving/parking on footpaths illegal overtaking, use of handphones, missing headlamps/tail lamps/brake lights.

+1million for this "literatly"

cps_goodbuy

TimAllen wrote: »

I agree with what you said ... but, i am new to Boards, if you are tired of the thread why not just go to another one that better suits your mood rather than going to the bother of posting the fact that your tired on the thread?

Ok I'll be happy about this thread *looks for picture to post of kitten being happy with thread*

Carturo

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?

You're a HUGE ****in' tosser.

peasant

Carturo wrote: »

You're a HUGE ****in' tosser.

and you just earned yourself an infraction

xz

Carturo wrote: »

You're a HUGE ****in' tosser.

Now this is where we get the eejits, making personal attacks, so far this thread has had constructive critisisms from all parties, and now it's being reduced to school yard name calling because you disagree with what was said....grow up!!!

hobochris

The rules of the road state are very clear as to who is at fault in an accident between an imoblised vehicle and any other road user that crashes into it. It is always the moving vehicle at fault.

An imbolised vehicle should always be moved to the far inner lane of the road, regardless of the designation of the lane. It is up to other road users to then overtake this vehicle safely.

When a cycle lane is part of a road it is governed by the rules of the road.

Personally I think cyclists should be held more accountable, there should be a permit system in place, with fines for cyclist that do not follow the rules of the road(which are in places for everyones safety).

xz

hobochris wrote: »

The rules of the road state are very clear as to who is at fault in an accident between an imoblised vehicle and any other road user that crashes into it. It is always the moving vehicle at fault.

An imbolised vehicle should always be moved to the far inner lane of the road, regardless of the designation of the lane. It is up to other road users to then overtake this vehicle safely.

When a cycle lane is part of a road it is governed by the rules of the road.

Personally I think cyclists should be held more accountable, there should be a permit system in place, with fines for cyclist that do not follow the rules of the road(which are in places for everyones safety).

So, in your opinion, cyclists should take a test, and "earn" a license.
Would there be an age limit on this? as there are a lot of school children cycle to school.

as regards the fines to not adhering to the rules of the road, I am all for it, but then again, fines aren't dished out often enough to motorists either who break the rules of the road.

On a bike as in a car, you are responsible for your own safety, and also for that of other road users,yes?

If I hit you, with my bike, I may scratch or dent your car a bit and possibly injure myself.
If on the other hand it was the other way round............................

My point is, motorists should treat cyclists with a little bit more due care and attention. They have rights too, and don't ALWAYS have a cycle track to cycle on, and thus must use the road also.
Being held up for a few more seconds or minutes WON'T kill you or anyone else, but being impatient and blaming a cyclist for making you late, and hence you get irritated, and maybe BEEP the cyclist, scaring the beJaysus out of them, or attempt to overtake, giving the cyclist very little room.
Things like this can kill.


BTW the cyclist was at fault in OP, just don't TAR all cyclists with the same brush, as I won't with motorists, seeing as I am both.

cyclopath2001

hobochris wrote: »

The rules of the road state are very clear as to who is at fault in an accident between an imoblised vehicle and any other road user that crashes into it. It is always the moving vehicle at fault.

Do they? They may say who should do what, but blame & liability are decided by the courts.

hobochris wrote: »

with fines for cyclist that do not follow the rules of the road(which are in places for everyones safety).

This is already the case for both motorists and cyclists.

Húrin

Perhaps the Darwin awards would entertain an application even if the insurance company wouldn't?

TimAllen wrote: »

I rang my insurance company, just to be on the safe side ... they said that they wouldnt entertain a claim so I dont have to worry.
There seems to be some fairly militant cyclists out there.... anyone with similar experiences?

I don't think this is really a 'militant cyclist' so much as the kind of hot-head that almost anyone can turn into when confronted about their own stupidity.

cyclopath2001

Húrin wrote: »

I don't think this is really a 'militant cyclist' so much as the kind of hot-head that almost anyone can turn into when confronted about their own stupidity.

Agreed.

kincsem

I crashed into a parked car when cycling. It was 40 years ago and I was learning an Irish poem for a textbook as I cycled uphill to school after lunch. Luckily no one saw the incident. I blame the Christian Brothers.

Niallface

i don't class myself as a militant cyclist but i am the guy who bangs on the roof of your car as you are just about to zero the gap between you and the curb. motorists are morons in the most part i cycle 22.4km on my daily commute and it is rare the day when i do not arrive at my destination without someone pulling out in front of me forcing evasive manoeuvres, forced me off the road, or nearly ended up killing me through no fault of my own. cyclists don't pay road tax because number one at the moment we have no part of the road that belongs to us in any safe way, number 2 we produce no emissions while simultaneously reducing our risk of heart disease and alleviating the HSE of ourselves until moron 4wheels messes up.
the start of this thread began with a car running out of petrol that don't happen with a bike when it does you is dead.
also the car in question was parked in the cycle lane creating a dangerous situation in which the cyclist had to merge with fast moving traffic which won;t stop.
"PLEASE DON'T PARK IN CYCLE LANES" how inconvenient would it be if i stopped in the middle of the road stopping cars?
and finally driving up behind a cyclist and beeping the horn will not make them pull in and let you past, in the majority of cases there is a reason for not cycling at the edge of the road, e.g., it is dangerous when cars squeeze past forcing you into the curb (this is called dangerous overtaking) or there is to much gutter crap at the edge of the road its where all the glass and gravel ends up and often where the cycle lane is placed.
so the next time you are driving your metal pollution box please be considerate of other road users.

return guide

Niallface wrote: »

i don't class myself as a militant cyclist but i am the guy who bangs on the roof of your car as you are just about to zero the gap between you and the curb. motorists are morons in the most part i cycle 22.4km on my daily commute and it is rare the day when i do not arrive at my destination without someone pulling out in front of me forcing evasive manoeuvres, forced me off the road, or nearly ended up killing me through no fault of my own. cyclists don't pay road tax because number one at the moment we have no part of the road that belongs to us in any safe way, number 2 we produce no emissions while simultaneously reducing our risk of heart disease and alleviating the HSE of ourselves until moron 4wheels messes up.
the start of this thread began with a car running out of petrol that don't happen with a bike when it does you is dead.
also the car in question was parked in the cycle lane creating a dangerous situation in which the cyclist had to merge with fast moving traffic which won;t stop.
"PLEASE DON'T PARK IN CYCLE LANES" how inconvenient would it be if i stopped in the middle of the road stopping cars?
and finally driving up behind a cyclist and beeping the horn will not make them pull in and let you past, in the majority of cases there is a reason for not cycling at the edge of the road, e.g., it is dangerous when cars squeeze past forcing you into the curb (this is called dangerous overtaking) or there is to much gutter crap at the edge of the road its where all the glass and gravel ends up and often where the cycle lane is placed.
so the next time you are driving your metal pollution box please be considerate of other road users.

that was a very Militant post for a non-militant.

I think itis worth remebering that the OP was in a car that was not moveable.

he/she moved it to the side of the road and put its hazard lights on.

Quint

TimAllen wrote: »

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

Anyway, I think after reading some of the cyclists posts here, I reckon you're right about the militant cyclists!

I was across a cycle lane pulling into a shop once, couldn't finish the manouver till a car moved an inch or 2 more. Anyway, I was on a motorbike, a cyclist was heading towards me, I could see him miles away, but he was daydreaming or looking too far ahead and he ploughed into me! He flew over the handlebars. Anyway, turned out he was ok, so was his bike. He looked pissed off, but he just wasn't looking! Anyway, he cycled off, leaving me to pick up my motorbike with a broken indicator and a nice big scratch down the side.

TimAllen

Niallface wrote: »

i don't class myself as a militant cyclist but i am the guy who bangs on the roof of your car as you are just about to zero the gap between you and the curb. motorists are morons in the most part i cycle 22.4km on my daily commute and it is rare the day when i do not arrive at my destination without someone pulling out in front of me forcing evasive manoeuvres, forced me off the road, or nearly ended up killing me through no fault of my own. cyclists don't pay road tax because number one at the moment we have no part of the road that belongs to us in any safe way, number 2 we produce no emissions while simultaneously reducing our risk of heart disease and alleviating the HSE of ourselves until moron 4wheels messes up.
the start of this thread began with a car running out of petrol that don't happen with a bike when it does you is dead.
also the car in question was parked in the cycle lane creating a dangerous situation in which the cyclist had to merge with fast moving traffic which won;t stop.
"PLEASE DON'T PARK IN CYCLE LANES" how inconvenient would it be if i stopped in the middle of the road stopping cars?
and finally driving up behind a cyclist and beeping the horn will not make them pull in and let you past, in the majority of cases there is a reason for not cycling at the edge of the road, e.g., it is dangerous when cars squeeze past forcing you into the curb (this is called dangerous overtaking) or there is to much gutter crap at the edge of the road its where all the glass and gravel ends up and often where the cycle lane is placed.
so the next time you are driving your metal pollution box please be considerate of other road users.

I guess you must be noticeable cycling thru town with such a massive chip on your shoulder!

mikemac

return guide wrote: »

that was a very Militant post for a non-militant.

I think itis worth remebering that the OP was in a car that was not moveable.

he/she moved it to the side of the road and put its hazard lights on.

This thread started with a genuine complaint from the OP.
And I don't think one person ever disagreed with them. Well done TimAllen, you were stupid to run out of petrol but you didn't cause the crash and you showed concern to the hot-heated cyclist

But the OP turned into cyclist bashing mode, the cyclists came back with many points and now there is a lot of confusion.

Needs to be locked imo

Raam

I would expect that people who cycle appear militant because there is a lot at risk for them if they are hit. Please don't mistake militant with being concerned for personal safety.

BostonB

TimAllen wrote: »

obviously I have a different perspective but the cycle track issue doesnt require my perspective, it is prescribed by law that cyclists must use them. I find it disturbing that many cyclists appear to condone such rule breaking - if everyone took that attitude there would be anarchy out there.

I give up you're not listening. Even though its deadly dangrerous to stay in the cycle lane all the time. Cyclists should stay in the cycle lane and risk death. Because death is preferred over disobeying laws created by someone who didn't understand the reality and practicalities of cycling. Be lemming basically. Ignore common sense.

Traumadoc

I cycled into the back of a parked car , it is more common than people think, I honestly believe it is that cycle helmets, especially with visors reduce cyclists forward view.
I ended up in hospital as i needed surgery to remove glass from my face.
I also had to pay 300 euro for damage to the car- as it was my fault.

TimAllen

Traumadoc wrote: »

I cycled into the back of a parked car , it is more common than people think, I honestly believe it is that cycle helmets, especially with visors reduce cyclists forward view.
I ended up in hospital as i needed surgery to remove glass from my face.
I also had to pay 300 euro for damage to the car- as it was my fault.

were you were wearing a helmet at the time? and is that the reason you crashed?

Traumadoc

Yes helmet with visor, cycling into a wind, so head down.