Cyclist crashed into my car

Quint

In fairness, blocking a cycle lane might have been the only option. I think the cyclist in question was completely at fault, nothing can excuse running into a stationary car.
I'm a cyclists too, I know the horrors of cycling, but nothing can excuse this. If every cyclist ran into stuff blocking cycle lanes, not one cyclists would make it into work! And if running out of petrol and blocking a cycle lane is breaking the rules, I'm asuming all the cyclists are angels and never break a light, or stray outside a real cycle lane!

slimjimmc

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.

He wasn't negligent in failing warning others of the obstruction, he had his hazard warning lights on! :

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.

In my opinion based on the OP, it was the cyclist who was negligent. If he was looking at the road ahead and applying due care and attention (as all road users are required to do) he may have avoided the collision.

TimAllen wrote: »

Cops tell the cyclist that it was completely his own fault. He claimed to have his head down and that I shouldnt have been in the lane

cyclopath2001

slimjimmc wrote: »

He wasn't negligent in failing warning others of the obstruction, he had his hazard warning lights on! :

But did he do enough? We don't know all the circumstances. After all there, was a collision and given the huge number of cars parked in cycle lanes daily, it's quite unusual that a cyclist would collide with such a common hazard.

Yes, the cyclist appears to have been negligent based on the information provide by the driver.

The driver, who had earlier lost control of his car due to fuel starvation, could have deployed a warning triangle, he could have put on a high-vis vest and given additional warning: he chose not to do so.

It's quite fortunate that the driver was able to stop his car safely. Imagine what could have happened if he'd been on the outside lane of a motorway.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The driver, who had earlier lost control of his car due to fuel starvation, could have deployed a warning triangle, he could have put on a high-vis vest and given additional warning: he chose not to do so.

Of course, in an ideal world, you're right.

But it's perfectly clear that a person who fails to see a 5' wide, 4.5' high vehicle with flashing lights in the broad daylight is not going to spot a 10" sided unlit triangle or a person walking around with a high-vis vest on.

Chances are the cyclist would have hit the triangle, fell on his arse and then started wailing at the OP for putting a triangle on the ground in his way.

javaboy

seamus wrote: »

Of course, in an ideal world, you're right.

But it's perfectly clear that a person who fails to see a 5' wide, 4.5' high vehicle with flashing lights in the broad daylight is not going to spot a 10" sided unlit triangle or a person walking around with a high-vis vest on.

Chances are the cyclist would have hit the triangle, fell on his arse and then started wailing at the OP for putting a triangle on the ground in his way.

+1. In fact given that warning triangles are not required here, ironically the cyclists might have had more of a case for claiming from the motorist if that had happened.

I think this thread should have been locked once it stopped being about the original incident and became yet another cyclist and motorist generalisation based thread. Why some cyclists feel the need to defend the cyclist in this case is beyond me. As a motorist I wouldn't feel compelled to defend some moron who drives with his head down so why do some cyclists?

I know most cyclists who got involved in this thread aren't defending the cyclist in question btw, they're just annoyed at the sweeping statements being made and that's fair enough.

Halfrauds

This incident would not have happened if the "OP" had some cop on, and didnt park in a cycle lane:rolleyes:

yes the cyclist is the same as 70% of other cyclists, total dickheads who dont have a clue about saftey or anything else,(identified by their lack of lights, mudguards, a hi-vis,and a piece of **** supermarket bike which the brakes dont work, and usually overweight.)

the "OP" is like 70% of other car/truck/motor users, inconsiderate, know it alls, and as far as they are concerned they own the road, and to hell with every other road user.


yes in a ideal world the OP should have had bells and whistles on but he didnt, he didnt even have petrol:D, this brings it back to the fact that NOBODY(myself included) carries the necessary saftey equipment in their cars, some which is compulsory others which should be like every other civilized EU country:o.

WHY? because its not enforced, the NCT should have a section that checks for appropriate saftey equipment.
TBH:eek:.


And for anybody that says the cycle path was the only place to stop, the OP said he crossed a broken line, this would only be there if they were approaching a L/H turn OR there were driveways to the left. So he had plenty of places to put it, with out causing a danger.


Any 5 year old will tell you:

Roads are for mechanical machines.
Paths are for pedestrians.
cycle paths are for cycles(NOT motorbikes/scooters:rolleyes:)

There is a reason for this, and anybody who breaks this most simple, basic rule of any country should IMO not be allowed outside of their bed, because we shouldnt have to deal with their ignorance or stupidity.

Cyclist was a idiot, but the accident was a result of the OP not having a clue tbh.

if i stand in the middle of the M50 with a fully lit christmas tree, ill expect to be run over, likewise if you park in a cycle path you should expect to be hit, or park on a path your car trampled on.

BTW was it raining at this stage OP?? because if it was have to ever tried to look up into freezing rain while moving at 30kmph?? impossible.

seamus

Halfrauds wrote: »

This incident would not have happened if the "OP" had some cop on, and didnt park in a cycle lane:rolleyes:

I think you're being a little unfair in this regard. He had two options:
1. Leave his car in the middle of the road, blocking traffic and presenting a danger to all road users.
2. Put his car on the cycle track, presenting a hazard to one set of road users.

In any other circumstances, I'd tell him the OP to get off, but if the vehicle won't move, what can he do? It's the lesser of two evils.

if i stand in the middle of the M50 with a fully lit christmas tree, ill expect to be run over, likewise if you park in a cycle path you should expect to be hit

Not really fair comparisons. You can't expect someone to be standing on the M50 with a Christmas tree. You can and should expect anyone and anything to be in your way on a cycle track.

BTW was it raining at this stage OP?? because if it was have to ever tried to look up into freezing rain while moving at 30kmph?? impossible.

If you can't see because you're going too fast, then you slow down or stop. Very basic one that. If you read my post above, I also learned that one the hard way.

Cionád

Halfrauds wrote: »

This incident would not have happened if the "OP" had some cop on, and didnt park in a cycle lane:rolleyes:

if i stand in the middle of the M50 with a fully lit christmas tree, ill expect to be run over, likewise if you park in a cycle path you should expect to be hit, or park on a path your car trampled on.

BTW was it raining at this stage OP?? because if it was have to ever tried to look up into freezing rain while moving at 30kmph?? impossible.

The cyclist should only be travelling at a speed at which he can stop in the distance he can see to be clear, just like car drivers.

And where would you expect the car driver to stop the car? - in the middle of the road? - he had no fuel, so obviously couldn't go elsewhere.

If there was a car parked on a country road with hazard lights on and i hit the back of it, it would be my fault.

I'm shocked people are defending this moron.

Halfrauds

seamus wrote: »

I think you're being a little unfair in this regard. He had two options:
1. Leave his car in the middle of the road, blocking traffic and presenting a danger to all road users.
2. Put his car on the cycle track, presenting a hazard to one set of road users.

.

yes you are right, but from what hes saying i dont believe he is telling the full story, Id bet money that there was a side road not too far away. its dublin after all:)

If not he should have
left it on the road, its where a car belongs, now he has the option of what road to leave it on??:) a residential side road or a main road, its up to him.

seamus wrote: »

In any other circumstances, I'd tell him the OP to get off, but if the vehicle won't move, what can he do? It's the lesser of two evils..

Get off his lazy arse and push, im sure sombody would help if he was blocking the road;)

seamus wrote: »

Not really fair comparisons. You can't expect someone to be standing on the M50 with a Christmas tree. You can and should expect anyone and anything to be in your way on a cycle track...

There is where you are wrong, if you are in charge of a ton of metal moving at 60kmph+(or zero in the op case:D) you should expect everything including the unexpected, such as a gob****e in the middle of a road with a tree, which im sure has happened(if ive seen a toilet in the middle of a road then a tree at christmas is entirely plausible:pac:)

If i stop in a cycle lane ill expect to lose wing mirrors, scrapes, dents etc etc etc, i wont come moaning here because of it, because i know im in the wrong.

You seriously CANNOT justify a car in a cycle lane stopped dead.

Also, according to gay byrne and the rules of his road, road users should only go at a speed that allows them to stop in a safe distance.

seamus wrote: »

If you can't see because you're going too fast, then you slow down or stop. Very basic one that. If you read my post above, I also learned that one the hard way.

well the cyclist was a idiot:rolleyes::D, he should have gotten a pair of cheap glasses;), either way the OP shouldnt have been in the cycle lane....you'll fail your test for that:p

this thread is about what happens when idiots collide tbh.:D:P

Drummerboy08

Lads i havent posted here yet, but i have been watching it.

From what i can see -

1 - The OP's car runs out of fuel - ruling out the luxury of parking his car, making sure it is in a safe spot etc. He has no option but to pull into the cycle lane.

2 - He turns his hazards on to warn other road users, pedestrians, cyclists, helicopters, Jets - whoever needs to be AWARE that his car is causing an obstruction.

3 - The OP has made it his business to get some fuel - not much else he can do at the minute.

4 - a cyclist runs into the back of him - causing damage to the bike, and possibly the car.

Now IMO, the OP has pulled into the side of the road, he has no fuel in the car to move to a safer spot, he turns on his hazards, organises more fuel, and in the meantime somebody who obviously wasnt looking ran into the back of him.

Regardless of weather conditions, time of day etc - if you cannot see where you are going and what is ahead, you SHOULD SLOW DOWN! This is a simple rule and applies to cars, bikes, mopeds, planes, or your child's buggy.

If someone runs into the back of me on say, the M50, while i have my lights on, making sure i am as visible as possible to other road users, and then he claims " but i couldnt see you" it aint my problem. I have done everything in my power to make myself visible to you, if you couldnt see me because of -

A - The weather conditions, you should slow down to a point where you can see

B - you have poor eyesight - you should either be wearing glasses, or possibly not be on the road at all

OR

C - You were not looking/concentrating/paying attention - you should NOT BE ON THE ROAD AT ALL. You are a danger to other road users.

C seems to be whats happened here IMO, the cyclist was not looking where he was going, and hits the back of a stationary car, them tries to blame the driver saying "you shouldnt have been there", the old school yard excuse "i'm sorry for breaking the window with the ball miss, but it should have been open".

Bottom line, the cyclist should have been looking and paying more attention - it could have easily been a young child, other cyclist, or pedestrian.

If it was the other way around - the cyclist was on the side of the road with NO cycle lane changing a flat tyre, and he was hit by a car, i'm sure heads would roll somewhere.

Just my 2c.

OldmanMondeo

Halfrauds wrote: »

well the cyclist was a idiot:rolleyes::D, he should have gotten a pair of cheap glasses;), either way the OP shouldnt have been in the cycle lane....you'll fail your test for that:p

Glasses would be no good for the cyclist, he had his head down, i.e. not lookinf where the **** where he was going. You would also fail your test for leaving a car in the middle of the road.

Listen the car was stationary, i.e. not moving. Now if a non moving can car not be seen then that cyclist should not be on a bike but using a white cane. Any court would side witht eh OP and find against the cyclist, no matter if the car should have been there or not. What if the cyclist was standing in the middle of the road trying to pump a tyre and the car hit him, who do you think would be at fault?

Halfrauds

Cionád wrote: »

The cyclist should only be travelling at a speed at which he can stop in the distance he can see to be clear, just like car drivers..

:D:pac::pac: chances are he was on the cheapest bike that he could find, which hadnt beeen assembled/set up correctly, i bet you his brakes dont work correctly, or were totally disconnected:mad:(back to the 70% of cyclists being retards who just dont understand that a bike needs servicing and up to a standard for road use:o)

Cionád wrote: »

And where would you expect the car driver to stop the car? - in the middle of the road? - he had no fuel, so obviously couldn't go elsewhere...

I dont mean to be patronising here but, if he ran out of fuel he didnt really have a choice in the matter:rolleyes:(well he did he could have stopped at a petrol station when his car started going ape**** at him:p), he stopped in the middle of the road, then pushed his car over i presume, well he should have pushed it to a side road.

HE CROSSED A BROKEN LINE, WHICH MEANS THERE WAS A TURN WITHING 10M OR SO!!!:rolleyes:...this is what im saying about a side road withing pushing distance.

Cionád wrote: »

If there was a car parked on a country road with hazard lights on and i hit the back of it, it would be my fault..

yes it would be your fault.

but you arnt getting the situation, THE CAR WASNT ON THE ROAD:rolleyes: he had no right to be in the cycle lane.

Cionád wrote: »

I'm shocked people are defending this moron.

Im not defending him!! please dont say that, the cyclist was a IDIOT!!!:mad:

Im actually on the drivers side in this, its just the argumant has no balance to it. The cyclist was a dick, the driver was a idiot who should read the rules of the road again before he drives tbh:mad:

seamus

Halfrauds wrote: »

There is where you are wrong, if you are in charge of a ton of metal moving at 60kmph+(or zero in the op case:D) you should expect everything including the unexpected, such as a gob****e in the middle of a road with a tree, which im sure has happened(if ive seen a toilet in the middle of a road then a tree at christmas is entirely plausible:pac:)

If i stop in a cycle lane ill expect to lose wing mirrors, scrapes, dents etc etc etc, i wont come moaning here because of it, because i know im in the wrong

I'm struggling to find out what point you're making here. I wouldn't be surprised if I had damage to car in a cycle lane either, but I'd be surprised if a cyclist decided that I was wrong because he hit my stationary, illuminated car. Would you apologise for painting your car with camoflage paint or would you tell him to f*ck off and watch where he's going?

Halfrauds

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Glasses would be no good for the cyclist, he had his head down, i.e. not lookinf where the **** where he was going. .?

your clearly a driver who just doesnt get cycling at all.

read between the lines.

NO GLASSES = HEAD DOWN TO STOP RAING BLASTING YOUR EYES

WITH GLASSES = HEAD UP BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE:rolleyes:

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

You would also fail your test for leaving a car in the middle of the road.?

YES!!!! you would if you ran outa petrol too:) so we are in agreement the driver was a half wit too? who shouldnt be driving?

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Listen the car was stationary, i.e. not moving..

well established fact mate.

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Now if a non moving can car not be seen then that cyclist should not be on a bike but using a white cane...

I AGREE THE CYCLIST IS A MUPPET!

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Any court would side witht eh OP and find against the cyclist, no matter if the car should have been there or not. ..

Yes your right the court would side with the op on the collision, but would fine the OP also for dangerous driving:rolleyes:(or whatever not driving on the road gets ya), should also be fined for being a idiot and running out of petrol TBH.

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

What if the cyclist was standing in the middle of the road trying to pump a tyre and the car hit him, who do you think would be at fault?

The cyclist for being a idiot, darwin sorted him in that situation:rolleyes:

but the driver would get the book too:):p


can you not see where the driver was wrong??

peasant

time to close?

L1011

Halfrauds wrote: »

Yes your right the court would side with the op on the collision, but would fine the OP also for dangerous driving:rolleyes:(or whatever not driving on the road gets ya), should also be fined for being a idiot and running out of petrol TBH.

Snowballs in hell of a driver being fined for running out of petrol and getting the car as much off the road as possible.

craichoe

Halfrauds wrote: »

Im actually on the drivers side in this, its just the argumant has no balance to it. The cyclist was a dick, the driver was a idiot who should read the rules of the road again before he drives tbh:mad:

The driver moved his car off the road, it was stationary with the hazard lights on and not obstructing traffic, i.e. possible for the cyclist to move around it without danger.
By that logic he should have pushed it all the way home and locked it in his garage incase a jumbo jet wasn't looking where it was going and tried to land on him.

Halfrauds

seamus wrote: »

I'm struggling to find out what point you're making here. I wouldn't be surprised if I had damage to car in a cycle lane either, but I'd be surprised if a cyclist decided that I was wrong because he hit my stationary, illuminated car. Would you apologise for painting your car with camoflage paint or would you tell him to f*ck off and watch where he's going?

Id apologise for being in the cycle lane TBH, but if he decided to sue me id tell him to **** off. Id also expect him to tell me to **** off for being in the lane.

Personally as a cyclist I wouldnt have done what the cyclist mention did, id have apologised for the damage, and asked the driver to be more considerate:)

I wouldnt come on boards, telling people i ran outa petrol, parked where i shouldnt have when in all probability there was a safer place 10m away, then look for sympathy or a pat on the back for not pressing charges(the guards involved were way offside:mad:):) why?? because id know i was a idiot. wouldnt need to be told:D

OldmanMondeo

Halfrauds wrote: »

your clearly a driver who just doesnt get cycling at all.

can you not see where the driver was wrong??

I used to cycle quite a lot, but stopped because I could afford a car and it became to dangerous to cycle, there was only a handfull of cycle lanes in Dublin before I started driving.

And I can see where the driver when wrong, he ran out of petrol, could have easily been a breakdown that would only allow the car to be move a very short distance.

Back on Topic the cyclist was an ass for not seeing the car and he is also a dickhead for his attitude to the OP. What do you want the op to do run around naked shouting "I'm out of petrol please do not cycle into my car"...

side note, I do respect our 2 wheel cousins and watch out for them when driving, at the end of the day I am safer in my car than someone on a bike.

OldmanMondeo

craichoe wrote: »

By that logic he should have pushed it all the way home and locked it in his garage incase a jumbo jet wasn't looking where it was going and tried to land on him.

Ah jayus, please don't bring the Jumbo's into another discussion.....

Halfrauds

craichoe wrote: »

The driver moved his car off the road, it was stationary with the hazard lights on and not obstructing traffic, i.e. possible for the cyclist to move around it without danger.
By that logic he should have pushed it all the way home and locked it in his garage incase a jumbo jet wasn't looking where it was going and tried to land on him.

so he should force the cyclist wide into either a pedestrian on a bus?? cop on.(plenty of bitching here when a cyclists forces traffic around them, you cant have both worlds now!)

There are rules, he didnt obey them, if you think he had a right to be in the lane, then god help the commuters you meet on your journey.

Both the parties were idiots, and if only ONE was doing what they were ment to this wouldnt have happend:rolleyes:

The motorist had more chances to avoid the incident than the driver

1. put petrol in the car.(really this is unbelievable tbh!)
2.place the car in a un obtstructing place

cylist could just avoid the car.

i didnt say push it home, i said push it a few metres to a side street away from traffic:rolleyes:

craichoe

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Ah jayus, please don't bring the Jumbo's into another discussion.....

Right .. grand ..

OP ... just so you know next time wrap the car in bubble wrap and superglue a few pillows on the back window just in case

**runs off to drive through pedestrian crossing with eyes closed in the hope aforementioned pedestrian will be crossing the road when the mans red, after all he shouldn't be there**

:P

Halfrauds

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

I used to cycle quite a lot, but stopped because I could afford a car and it became to dangerous to cycle, there was only a handfull of cycle lanes in Dublin before I started driving.

And I can see where the driver when wrong, he ran out of petrol, could have easily been a breakdown that would only allow the car to be move a very short distance.

Back on Topic the cyclist was an ass for not seeing the car and he is also a dickhead for his attitude to the OP. What do you want the op to do run around naked shouting "I'm out of petrol please do not cycle into my car"...

side note, I do respect our 2 wheel cousins and watch out for them when driving, at the end of the day I am safer in my car than someone on a bike.

I cycle, i can afford a car too, i just prefer to get to work quicker, stay fitter, and enjoy my commute more:)

You see not all cyclists cant afford a car, in fact my bike is worth more than the OP's car.

I think thats a bad assumption among drivers because it breeds the "Im better than you syndrome"

statistically speaking, your more at risk in a car:rolleyes:

cycling isnt dangerous if you have cop-on and can see whats developing ahead.

Halfrauds

craichoe wrote: »

Right .. grand ..

OP ... just so you know next time wrap the car in bubble wrap and superglue a few pillows on the back window just in case

**runs off to drive through pedestrian crossing with eyes closed in the hope aforementioned pedestrian will be crossing the road when the mans red, after all he shouldn't be there**

:P

no need to be sarcastic, there is enough stupidity on this thread;)

can you not see the whole picture here?:(

Both were wrong.

Halfrauds

MYOB wrote: »

Snowballs in hell of a driver being fined for running out of petrol and getting the car as much off the road as possible.

unfortunatly you are right, but yet its wrong that motorists should get away with it(me included).:mad:

Halfrauds

peasant wrote: »

time to close?

jaysus, if he ran outa petrol on that hed have been in trouble:D:D


fecking cyclists shouldnt be on them either:P

peasant

Halfdrauds

Deep breaths ...calm down. We get your point.

OldmanMondeo

Halfrauds wrote: »

I cycle, i can afford a car too, i just prefer to get to work quicker, stay fitter, and enjoy my commute more:)

You see not all cyclists cant afford a car, in fact my bike is worth more than the OP's car.

I think thats a bad assumption among drivers because it breeds the "Im better than you syndrome"

statistically speaking, your more at risk in a car:rolleyes:

cycling isnt dangerous if you have cop-on and can see whats developing ahead.

I used to cycle to work everyday, tallaght to city centre. got there quicker than any car or bus. I would do now but I live to far to do so.

I would be safer in a car in a crash than a cyclist / biker because I am protected by a roof doors bonnet etc. All a biker/cyclist has is a few elbow / knee pads and a helmet, that will not save you should, god forbid, a truck or bus rins you over.

Pity the guy cycling did not see ahead and a parked car... but then we wouldn't have a 16+ page discussion here. Feck it fair play to him.

Cionád

Halfrauds wrote: »

but you arnt getting the situation, THE CAR WASNT ON THE ROAD:rolleyes: he had no right to be in the cycle lane.

No your missing the point, it doesnt matter that the car shouldn't have been there, it could have been a fallen tree branch, or a cyclist with a puncture. He shouldn't have been cycling so fast as to be unable to stop before the obstruction.

craichoe

Halfrauds wrote: »

no need to be sarcastic, there is enough stupidity on this thread;)

can you not see the whole picture here?:(

Both were wrong.

In most countries on the continent if you were caught pushing a car down the road to try and find a 'safe spot' you would get a ticket, reason being is that your brakes and power steering doesn't work, you make 'best effort' to get the car out of the flow of major traffic.

You don't use a warning triangle on a city street, only motorway or second class roads, you place it 10 - 15 meters away from the rear of the car.

I believe the OP in this case made best effort to do get his car out of traffic, if he pushed it down a side road he'd still be blocking traffic anyway, if he pushed it onto a kerb pedestrians may had to walk around it into traffic to get past.

Total sillyness, cyclist deserves the Darwin award, the OP should remember to keep his car filled with Juice..

Running out of Fuel on a Motorway in Conto Europe would have cost a fine, running out on a non motorway road would have invoked no such fine.