T-boned by teenage on bicycle

SteM

Swanner wrote: »

Because my question was in relation to the fact that different advice was given on 2 similar threads. Given that this was the more recent of the 2 threads I would have thought it would be the more appropriate..

Look it was a simple enough question that seems to have elicited a very defensive response so i'll take my answer from that and leave it there...

Different advice from different posters isn't it though? It's because people think differently. Not a big shock. Some people are more cautious about their physical well being than others. My wife will think about going to see a doctor over things I would never even consider.

AlreadyHome

Swanner wrote: »

Because my question was in relation to the fact that different advice was given on 2 similar threads. Given that this was the more recent of the 2 threads I would have thought it would be the more appropriate..

Look it was a simple enough question that elicited a very defensive response so i'll take my answer from that and leave it there...

It was a purposefully provocative, incredibly vague question consequently referencing something utterly unrelated.

Take your ellipses and jog on.

oflahero

CosmicSmash wrote: »

You come across as a child throwing your toys out of the pram with the last bit.

No, he doesn't. The majority of readers on this forum have long accepted with gritted teeth that there is a minority of posters with an axe to grind about cycling who hang around like a bad smell, and occasionally throw in the odd pointless bomb like our friend above.

It's a mystifying phenomenon, and I don't know how anyone can have the tenacity to waste their time like that, but there you have it. It's pretty safe to say instead that most people here would take Seamus' admirably-restrained view.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: If there is an issue with a post, report it. Rules are simple. You attack the post not the poster.

This is a warning to all posters, I am not going backwards in the thread but all future posts breaching this warning will be carded.

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Can we agree that yes, it would be a good idea for the OP to go and get checked out after falling off his or her bike?

I've only once gone to the doctor after falling off a bike (it seldom happens anyway; less than once a decade as an adult), and that's because I tore my knee open. It was fine anyway, but I got a tetanus shot.

Other than that, it depends on what injuries you've received. Usually people are urged to see a doctor because they've struck their head. That can seem harmless and then unexpectedly become a race against time.

NUTLEY BOY

OP - Small Claims Court would have no jurisdiction over this. It would be a District Court case.

Are there any marks or damage on your car ? If so, photograph them as they might help to verify point of impact on your vehicle.

Be sure to report this to your motor insurers.

Be sure to tell your insurers that you hold a firm view that you were not at fault. They can do what they like with the claim but it does help to register your views and makes them justify themselves to you before they contemplate even a nuisance value settlement to make it go away.

Once had a case like this except the villain drove a car out of a side-road. The good guy driver worked overseas most of the year - literally up the jungle. Villain sued thinking good guy would not even show for the case. We got the good guy back from the jungle and kept him out of sight until the lying villain completed his evidence. We then put the good guy in to evidence and that killed the case dead. You should have seen the villain's face.:)

Moral - there is an unmitigated chancer around every bend :mad:

tomasrojo

Was the OP not also on a bike?

Nekarsulm

I presume OP was also on a bicycle. He said both the teenager and himself suffered minor bruising.
Don't know where the idea of a car being involved came from.

romperstomper

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I presume OP was also on a bicycle. He said both the teenager and himself suffered minor bruising.
Don't know where the idea of a car being involved came from.

Edited OP to say cycling home.

Weepsie

Swanner wrote: »

Well I was referring to a recent thread on this forum where a cyclist hit a stationary vehicle and was looking for advice on next steps...

Nothing vague about it and no mind reading skills required. You made a few assumptions which were incorrect but hey, it happens, no biggy..



Not really. My advice would be the same for both though. If you're hurt and you think it's serious or needs treatment, go see a doctor. If not, rest and ice and you'll be fine. I've no idea what point you're trying to make though..

You're talking about the thread when the car was in traffic and opened the door to which an incoming cyclist hit. You're being purposely vague saying stationary car. A cyclist cycling into a stationary car obviously needs to wake them selves up. A cyclist having a door of a stationary car opened in their path is different.

I suggest you try cycling into an open car door.
A) you'll see how serious it can be. it might knock sense into you and your attempt at trolling.

Finally recommending seeing a doc is not automatically trying to screw it someone on insurance. Its precautionary, nothing more

endagibson

Chuchote wrote: »

Can we agree that yes, it would be a good idea for the OP to go and get checked out after falling off his or her bike?

I didn't when I fell off last year. Of course my fall was broken by a roadside hedge full of brambles, so all I had were scrapes to my face, arms and legs. Lots of blood, but no real harm. Cycled home, cleaned and disinfected myself there.

Wishbone Ash

lawred2 wrote: »

you don't need signs to instruct you to not stop at a T junction....

Housing estates can be a bit different though. My parents live beside a T-junction where the accepted right of way is the route taken by the 'villian' in the previous descriptions. There is no signage and it just seemed to evolve that way over the years. It is a bit puzzling for those not familiar with the set up.

The Bishop Basher

tomasrojo wrote: »

Other than that, it depends on what injuries you've received. Usually people are urged to see a doctor because they've struck their head. That can seem harmless and then unexpectedly become a race against time.

I completely agree with this.. Although in the case of a head injury I would recommend by-passing the GP and going straight to an A&E especially if consciousness was lost. A GP can only do very basic tests and as you say, time is of the essence with head injuries.

Weepsie wrote: »

I suggest you try cycling into an open car door.
A) you'll see how serious it can be.

Well i have cycled into the side of a car if that helps.. I clipped the edge of the roof as I went over the top and landed in a heap on the far side. Got up, dusted myself down, sorted it out with the driver and went on my way, shaken but relatively uninjured thankfully..

Weepsie wrote: »

it might knock sense into you and your attempt at trolling.

Well the personal insults just keep coming here today :eek:

Good job i have a thick skin...:D

Weepsie wrote: »

Finally recommending seeing a doc is not automatically trying to screw it someone on insurance. Its precautionary, nothing more

Precautionary for what though ? Do you mean precautionary in case you decide to pursue a claim or precautionary from a medical standpoint. If you mean from a medical standpoint...

Do you want the doctor to confirm that you do indeed have a bruised arm as you suspected

Or...

Do you want them to confirm that you do indeed have some other injury which currently has no symptoms, hasn't yet manifested itself and that you currently don't know you have..

Please clarify...

Del2005

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Housing estates can be a bit different though. My parents live beside a T-junction where the accepted right of way is the route taken by the 'villian' in the previous descriptions. There is no signage and it just seemed to evolve that way over the years. It is a bit puzzling for those not familiar with the set up.

Local conventions don't override the law though. If someone pulled out in front of someone travelling from the right they are responsible for the RTC.

Chuchote

'Local conventions' shouldn't contradict traffic law. Not everyone's local, except on… what's that TV programme?

Yeah, in talking about getting checked up I meant in case of a) bang on the head or b) whiplash-likely landing.

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?

I'm turning to the dark side, if DHL ever turn up with the helmet I've ordered; got a MIPS version of the Giro Sutton.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?

Not a metastudy, and a bit old now, but useful: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Weepsie

Swanner wrote: »

Precautionary for what though ? Do you mean precautionary in case you decide to pursue a claim or precautionary from a medical standpoint. If you mean from a medical standpoint...

Do you want the doctor to confirm that you do indeed have a bruised arm as you suspected

Or...

Do you want them to confirm that you do indeed have some other injury which currently has no symptoms, hasn't yet manifested itself and that you currently don't know you have..

Please clarify...

It wasn't so much an insult as advise. And I personally mean from a medical standpoint. I thought I had only a bruised arm not so long ago, turned out to be a broken elbow.

I was once hit by a driver who though left me with concussion which gave me headaches for several weeks. It was by going to a doc that I knew what to look out for and to go back if it grew worse which it did. I didn't sue, or make a claim. I wanted the driver to pay the doc fee and for my glasses, but I didn't pursue it.

Chuchote

buffalo wrote: »

Chuchote wrote: »

Incidentally, is there any comparative study on head injuries (/fatal head injuries) to cyclists and vehicular drivers/passengers? Cyclists will always say "but it's drivers who die of head injuries; drivers will always say "you wouldn't get me on one of those things without a helmet". Has anyone actually compared the risk in a metastudy of medical studies?
/QUOTE]

Not a metastudy, and a bit old now, but useful: http://www.headway.ie/download/pdf/phillips_report.pdf

Mm. It just gives a blanket statement that "helmets are proven to save lives", but uses a motorcycling statistic to back it up.

HivemindXX

Weepsie wrote: »

You're talking about the thread when the car was in traffic and opened the door to which an incoming cyclist hit. You're being purposely vague saying stationary car.

That's not being purposely vague, it's lying plain and simple. Thanks for pointing it out. It's obvious that Swanner was hoping nobody would notice.

Type 17

Another way of looking at this is that, where the two roads are of equal importance, and there are no overriding signs or markings, any road user who is going straight has right of way over any road user who is turning. This is the law in most situations and in most countries around the world, except when other issues mean the rule is reversed (many continental European countries enforce traffic calming in urban zones by giving all side roads in a village priority over the main road, using the yellow diamond road sign with a slash through it ("you do not have priority")).

This basic principle is also why vehicles turning (left or right) must give way to pedestrians crossing the road that the vehicle is turning into, as the pedestrian is going straight on and the vehicle is turning.

The dopey teen turning left should be told to get lost, and even be given any bill that the OP incurred.

tomasrojo

In Killucan, near Kinnegad, it was the custom at one junction for locals to eschew the correct route around a triangular traffic island (go the left of the triangle and then hang right) and instead drive up the road to the right of the triangle as a short cut -- which, of course, set them on a collision course with oncoming traffic. I hadn't thought about it for years until just now.

Wesser

The problem here isn't the teenager.
The problem is that these teenagers usually have a fairly aggressive mother who believes that her son is an angel and is very angry that someone else has harmed him or crossed him
In any way. She is a hovering snowplough parent who has taken cases herself and has reared her children in to an ethos of compensation. This is why a teenager thinks immediately of the money involved. I was involved in a similar incident as a teenager and looking for money never crossed my
Mind!

Alek

On a side note, today I have witnessed one Dublin Bike almost T-bone another in a middle of a busy intersection in the city centre. Both have just jumped red lights, other traffic was waiting

NUTLEY BOY

Apologies OP I did not read your original post properly - I am currently fixated with running down cases involving vehicles that are not bicycles

The basic principles are the same as if you were driving a car in terms of potential legal liabilities.

Don't be worried about being outnumbered by witnesses from the other side who "swear up" suitably. Outweighing opponents by the sheer number of witnesses does not automatically ensure a win for them. A smart judge usually has little difficulty in seeing through perfectly harmonious evidence from all members of the plaintiff's choir.

You probably have public liability insurance against any potential liability to the other guy or even the legal costs of defending any case from him. You will probably find the liability cover under the contents section of your household insurance. Might be no harm to notify the incident to them just to cover yourself in case anything develops.