Cyclist crashed into my car

TimAllen

Traumadoc wrote: »

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

Sorry for your troubles (glass in face sounds serious) but, head down seems to be the problem, it doesnt have to be a parked car, it could be a kid, a pram, an elderly pedestrian - pretty dangerous when you think about it

uberwolf

TimAllen wrote: »

Sorry for your troubles (glass in face sounds serious) but, head down seems to be the problem, it doesnt have to be a parked car, it could be a kid, a pram, an elderly pedestrian - pretty dangerous when you think about it

absolutely it does. This is far more common than you'd credit. People are inhibiting their senses all the time. Cyclists and pedestrians wearing earphones, motorists with radios on. It's fine 99% of the time...

TimAllen

uberwolf wrote: »

absolutely it does. This is far more common than you'd credit. People are inhibiting their senses all the time. Cyclists and pedestrians wearing earphones, motorists with radios on. It's fine 99% of the time...

Inhibiting sight is in a different league altogether

Traumadoc

Actually the child thing is a real problem where cycle paths are shared with pedestrians, or where pedestrians use cycle paths as footpaths such as in the phoenix park. I gave up using the cyclepath there after a few near incidents with pedestrian/ children, including hitting a walkers wrist as it swung across my path ( not deliberate)

cyclopath2001

Traumadoc wrote: »

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

Cars are parked in cycle tracks all the time, often in darkness and without any hazard lights. Collisions like this are not common.

Keith186

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

That's ridiculous. Why should they pay tax if they don't really take up any road space or cause wear and tear to the roads.

As for insurance being a requirement, this is a bit too much. They aren't near as dangerous to other people as motorbikes or cars and it's just OTT.

cyclopath2001

Keith186 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Why should they pay tax if they don't really take up any road space or cause wear and tear to the roads..

Motorists don't pay road tax, why should cyclists?

mikemac

Traumadoc wrote: »

Actually the child thing is a real problem where cycle paths are shared with pedestrians, or where pedestrians use cycle paths as footpaths such as in the phoenix park. I gave up using the cyclepath there after a few near incidents with pedestrian/ children, including hitting a walkers wrist as it swung across my path ( not deliberate)

There is a fantasic cycle lane in the Phoenix Park along Chesterfield Avenue. Over 4km long, grippy surface, lots of signage and differnet colour to the footpath, why couldn't it succed?? But it fails misrealbly. I used to think it was because the cycle lane was well lit with the footpath is in darkness, hell I've jogged on the cycle lane but I check behind and in front and I'll move out of any cyclists way. But will everyone?

Do you know Clontarf & Dollymount seafront? A promendade by the sea, a footpath by the road, another footpath by the other side of the road. So with three walking options, do you know why people walk in the cycle lane because I sure don't. I give them advice and if that's ignored I give them abuse. 3 options and they choose the cycle lane??

Keith186 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Why should they pay tax if they don't really take up any road space or cause wear and tear to the roads.

I think cyclists should pay "road tax". Ignoring the fact that it doesn't exist, the fact that it's based on emmisions means a rate of zero euro per year

Keith186

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Motorists don't pay road tax, why should cyclists?

WTF?
You know what I mean smart ass. Don't be so pedantic.

Traumadoc

Regarding insurance :Why stop at cyclists?
A pedestrian can do significant damage to a car if they walk infront of it.

Traumadoc

Actually pedestrians should pay motor tax also as they sometimes use the road too.

Keith186

micmclo wrote: »

1) do you know why people walk in the cycle lane because I sure don't.


2) I think cyclists should pay "road tax". Ignoring the fact that it doesn't exist, the fact that it's based on emmisions means a rate of zero euro per year

1) Same reason why some people cycle on the footpath. They don't give a sh*t OR don't pay attention.

2) Well if something didn't exist how can you state it's based on emissions?

Yes, we all realise my little mistake in calling 'motor tax' 'road tax'. Time to get over it.
Surely 95% of people could afford to pay to get some minor damage fixed hence no reason to get the insurance. Whereas if a motorist hit a pedestrian and was at fault, the injured party could be paralysed for life and need millions in compensation to have assistance care for the rest of their life.

Do you not think it would be a sad state of affairs if you had to have insurance to cross a road? Think about it a bit more. This place is already turning into a nanny state without your crap.

Keith186

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Keith186 wrote: »

You know what I mean smart ass./QUOTE]You mean that the amount of roadspace you use and your priority on it should be related to the amount of taxes you pay?

In a fair world. If you drive a 40ft lorry, take up the space of 5 cars, kill a lot of cyclists in the city centre (emergency services cost money) and weigh tonnes causing more damage to the roads which need to be funded by tax then I think you should pay more tax.

Edit: just to point out you do know I mean motor tax.

BostonB

TimAllen wrote: »

Sorry for your troubles (glass in face sounds serious) but, head down seems to be the problem, it doesnt have to be a parked car, it could be a kid, a pram, an elderly pedestrian - pretty dangerous when you think about it

This is along the lines of expecting drivers being able to see 360 100% of the time. We're all human and no can be 100% observant. Obviously someone who has the head down too long is a fault. Ditto a driver fiddling with a radio, or a pedestrian, not looking and steeping out into traffic.

cyclopath2001

Keith186 wrote: »

Edit: just to point out you do know I mean motor tax.

It's common mistake.

Traumadoc

BostonB wrote: »

This is along the lines of expecting drivers being able to see 360 100% of the time. We're all human and no can be 100% observant. Obviously someone who has the head down too long is a fault. Ditto a driver fiddling with a radio, or a pedestrian, not looking and steeping out into traffic.

Yes lucikly I only injured myself , I have seen terrible injuries in drivers, pedestrians and cyclists where drivers have had their attention drawn away to mobile phonecalls and the like.

TimAllen

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes lucikly I only injured myself , I have seen terrible injuries in drivers, pedestrians and cyclists where drivers have had their attention drawn away to mobile phonecalls and the like.

such behaviour is illegal and nobody on here condones such behaviour - counter that with cyclists who actively advocate breaches of legislation

Bee

TimAllen wrote: »

Was heading into Dublin city yesterday and ran out of petrol (embarrassing). I pushed my car into the side of the road - which happened to be a cycle lane. I put the hazards on and sat waiting for my brother to come to the rescue with a gallon of juice. Suddenly this cyclist crashes straight into my car and takes a tumble.

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?

Was he/she/it trying it on?

Seen a total cyclopath of the usual moronic sort cycling into the back of a bus because the fool was riding the slipstream, the ultimate irony was the bus had to pull up suddenly because another idiot cyclist broke the red lights at a junction.

I did my best for the guy and and got an ambulance, I reckon his safety helmet saved his life. What a total prat that hit you and I am sorry to hear about any damage to your car

Traumadoc

No answering a mobile phone is not illegal AFAIK, using a hand held mobile phone is.
How many motorists are killed seriously injured by cyclists?

In my work I have seen what HGVs and cars do to cyclists and its not pretty.

PeakOutput

Traumadoc wrote: »

Actually pedestrians should pay motor tax also as they sometimes use the road too.

pedestrians dont need insurance as legally they are never liable so they will never have need to use it

PeakOutput

TimAllen wrote: »

counter that with cyclists who actively advocate breaches of legislation

cyclists not using cycle lanes is only dangerous to themselves. cyclists are regularly found at fault for accidents they are involved in on the road aswell so its not like the motorist is always held accountable and therefore the cyclists shouldnt be there.

drivers not being vigilant, which is the main problem, is dangerous to everyone.

i havnt cycled in about 2 years but i used to go from malahide to city center every morning and then back in the evening and even on the cycle lanes motorists still found a way to act like idiots and try to kill me hell i was walking my bike across a pedestrian crossing near coolock one day and a woman in a porche cayanne(sp??? big jeep very expensive) flew up the inside lane as i was half way across and almost took me out.

im now a driver(as i was then too really) but cyclists over the age off 18 very rarely cause a problem compared to what every other driver on the road does

BostonB

TimAllen wrote: »

such behaviour is illegal and nobody on here condones such behaviour - counter that with cyclists who actively advocate breaches of legislation

What is your problem anyway. The cyclist was in the wrong, for not being aware of the obstruction. End of story. Its not like its only cyclists that suffer from this. Everyone does. Poor observation causes lots of accidents. Like failing to observe you'd no petrol. This could have happened on a major road, and a motorist, maybe with a car full of kids could have plowed into the back of you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/23/transport.world

bAd

TimAllen wrote: »

well thankfully, most people have the common sense to realise that an idiot who cycles straight into a stationery object is completely at fault. The gardai agree and so does my insurance - where did you get "clapped out old banger" from?
I take some degree of comfort from the simple Darwinian fact that cyclists like the one I encountered, or indeed anyone that travels without looking where they are going, will sooner or later expel themselves from the human gene pool with their own stupidity

it doesn't matter if the cyclist was doing a handstand blindfolded....you created the obstruction and were negligent in failing to warn other road users. Now don't be surprised if he presents you with medical evidence of injuries that weren't immediately apparent after the incident. Stupidity will always be part of the human condition. It's something that intelligent people like your good self(who takes the car out with a near empty tank)will have to live with.

bAd

PeakOutput wrote: »

cyclists not using cycle lanes is only dangerous to themselves. cyclists are regularly found at fault for accidents they are involved in on the road aswell so its not like the motorist is always held accountable and therefore the cyclists shouldnt be there.

drivers not being vigilant, which is the main problem, is dangerous to everyone.

i havnt cycled in about 2 years but i used to go from malahide to city center every morning and then back in the evening and even on the cycle lanes motorists still found a way to act like idiots and try to kill me hell i was walking my bike across a pedestrian crossing near coolock one day and a woman in a porche cayanne(sp??? big jeep very expensive) flew up the inside lane as i was half way across and almost took me out.

im now a driver(as i was then too really) but cyclists over the age off 18 very rarely cause a problem compared to what every other driver on the road does

well put, very true.

unkel

bAd wrote: »

it doesn't matter if the cyclist was doing a handstand blindfolded....you created the obstruction and were negligent in failing to warn other road users. Now don't be surprised if he presents you with medical evidence of injuries that weren't immediately apparent after the incident. Stupidity will always be part of the human condition. It's something that intelligent people like your good self(who takes the car out with a near empty tank)will have to live with.

Quoted for complete and utter stupidity. If you cycle into an object that has been stationary for a while, you're at fault. Period.

PeakOutput

unkel wrote: »

Quoted for complete and utter stupidity. If you cycle into an object that has been stationary for a while, you're at fault. Period.

+1

ye sorry bad i know you agreed with me and well now i feel....eh bad.....but the op did nothing wrong. his lack of respect for other road users(cyclists) leaves alot to be desired but the cyclist that hit the op is completely liable both from a legal and a common sense view

cyclopath2001

unkel wrote: »

Quoted for complete and utter stupidity. If you cycle into an object that has been stationary for a while, you're at fault. Period.

In this case we don't know all of the facts. The extent of the fault would depend on the full circumstances being known,

It would not be unreasonable to insist that the driver be fined for obstruction & the cyclist for not looking where he was going.

craichoe

Jaysus this thread is ridiculous, the cyclist was in the wrong, its just plain common sense. If you run into something because you werent looking where you were going then its your own stupid fault.

You peeps are lucky, i live where the bicycle is king and the car is third class after motorists, i have to get an extra insurance policy just to cover cyclists. Here if they ran into your stationary car and you were in a bicycle lane you would be in the wrong.

But i dont think this would be the case in Ireland at all !!

Mr. Presentable

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In this case we don't know all of the facts. The extent of the fault would depend on the full circumstances being known,

It would not be unreasonable to insist that the driver be fined for obstruction & the cyclist for not looking where he was going.

While I quite admire your trenchant support for your chosen form of transport, I believe you are allowing it to colour your judgement in this case. It would be completely unreasonable to fine the motorist for following correct procedure when his vehicle has broken down.

What would you have him do?

1 Leave the car among the traffic
2 Push it across the road and park it there
3 Push it along the road to a place where there is no cycle lane

rubadub

TimAllen wrote: »

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

TimAllen wrote: »

I find it disturbing that many cyclists appear to condone such rule breaking - if everyone took that attitude there would be anarchy out there.

Still the healthy US & THEM attitude... Many of the people on bicycles who appear to condone it also have cars, and would probably stick to the rules of the road more in a car, also when on foot they probably break them even more..

TimAllen wrote: »

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).

Have you ever wondered why that is? In a car you see the car in front and behind, not much movement. On a bicycle you are normally encountering way more cars than other bikes. And vice versa in the car you tend to see lots of bicycles, especially in rush hour traffic when you have time to sit there looking around. The way some pedantic arguments go many in cars are just upset, jealous and bitter at seeing cyclists breaking some rules in rush hour traffic, while they sit there stressed to bits with nothing else to do but get riled up.

In many cases if a pedestrian was doing the exact same thing, at the exact same speed, with the exact same mechanical opbject hey would have no problem- e.g. illegally crossing a dual carriage way. "Look at that cyclist kunt breaking the light, oh wait, he is carrying that bike and it has a ribbon on it, maybe for his kid, he is one of US so, he's grand."

On a bike I notice pedestrians breaking most rules. In a car I notice cyclists more as I cannot see a lot of cars in front. On a bike I see lots of cars breaking rules, I expect many do not even realise they are breaking any rules, most PEOPLE are ignorant of the rules of the road. And in the VAST majority of cases, the law breaking I see is not putting people in danger.