What to do after RTC

godtabh

CI insurance covers you if you are training

CramCycle

LpPepper wrote: »

Here's a screenshot of where I ended up afterwards. As you can see, the taxi ahead isnt anywhere near either of us. No cars on her side either.

Did she pull into the bike lane and then drop anchor? If she did then she is at fault. If she was always there as you approached, then you are at fault. I have a funny feeling (no offence intended) that you are explaining this poorly. A clip from a few seconds before upto the collision would be more explanatory.

Tigerandahalf

godtabh wrote: »

CI insurance covers you if you are training

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

godtabh

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

As far as I know yes but I think they are specific in what training is

Beasty

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

Public liability cover is €7.5m

cython

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Even if not on club cycles?
Very handy so. I wonder what the liability ceiling is?

Technically I think it has to be approved/sanctioned training, but without saying who approves/sanctions it. Obviously an unattached rider is really the only person in a position to approve their own training (within any CI limits, which I haven't found yet despite searching), but why should they arguably get "more" benefit from the insurance than a club cyclist by virtue of being unattached, which would be the scenario if the club has to approve/sanction their members' training to be covered?

Weepsie

By the sounds of it, you're legally in the wrong but if she is a learner driver without an accompanying driver she'd be f*cked and have zero claim surely?

magicbastarder

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Are cyclists taking out insurance to cover themselves in incidences like this.

i say this with the fear of starting an argument about cyclists and insurance again, but is there anyone offering third party insurance to commuting cyclists?

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

By the sounds of it, you're legally in the wrong but if she is a learner driver without an accompanying driver she'd be f*cked and have zero claim surely?

if this is the case, both parties would be advised to walk away and consider themselves lucky.

Fian

Regardless of whether or not she was accompanied by a fully licenced driver you are the one legally liable for any damage here. You would be foolish to pursue her for any compensation.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't your fault morally, if she stopped suddenly for no good reason or whatever.

I remember when I was around 18 driving in connemara I was very annoyed about an accident I got into. A tourist stopped their car in the middle of the road to take a photo of galway bay. It was just over the brow of a "blind" hill - this hill (since removed) was one where you could only see about four feet of road as you approached the top - well you could see some more road further on but the road immediately beyond that first four feet was invisible behind the hill. A line of cars go over the hill, first car slams on the brakes and stops before hitting the tourist, second car manages to stop before hitting the first car. the available space to stop is getting closer and closer to the brow of the hill and I rear-ended the second car.

The tourist was clearly an idiot and the person who actually caused the accident. It was equally clear that I was the only one legally liable, even though it was not realistically reasonable to expect me to have driven at a speed that would have allowed me to avoid rear ending the car I hit. That's life.

Edit: she may have been commiting a driving offence by not being accompanied by a fully licenced driver. that does not shift the causation of the accident in any way and is entirely irrelevant to who is legally liable for the damage.

magicbastarder

i once rear-ended a taxi on my bike. totalled the frame.
a few people - non-cyclists, incidentally - suggested the taxi was at fault because it appeared that someone hailed him and he pulled in to the kerb (on a road with no cycle lane) and i hit the back of him.
i can't say if he indicated, as i was looking the wrong way at the time, and only looked up about 5 foot from his bumper, doing about 30kph, so obvious lack of observation on my part was the overriding factor as far as i'm concerned.

CramCycle

Fian wrote: »

The tourist was clearly an idiot and the person who actually caused the accident. It was equally clear that I was the only one legally liable, even though it was not realistically reasonable to expect me to have driven at a speed that would have allowed me to avoid rear ending the car I hit. That's life.

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

Fian

CramCycle wrote: »

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

Yes, I know. Obviously I was legally responsible.

In the real world nobody in Connemara goes over the top of a hill on the main Galway road at a speed that would allow them to come to a complete stop in four / five feet.

This is why I said "realistically reasonable" - nobody slowed down to walking speed to go over the top of the hill in the real world and in the real world doing so would probably increase the likelihood of being involved in an accident - albeit that the accident would be one for which the person rear-ending you would be legally responsible.

Legally required standards are not always going to be realistic in all circumstances and on particular spots on the road. The spot where that accident happened was a terrible part of the road, in the twenty+ years since the local authority have bulldozed/removed the entire hill and flattened the road - because it was clearly dangerous. The road went that way at the time only because it was squeezing between a large hill/cliff and the sea.

eeguy

CramCycle wrote: »

Not only is it reasonable, it is expected as a minimum standard of driving.

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

check_six

magicbastarder wrote: »

the way i read the OP's post is that the driver had previously changed lanes without indicating, but there was no suggestion that this was a contributory factor.

the phrasing was 'moved from the right lane to left initially without indicating' which is different from saying 'she veered across in front of me'. obviously, i'm just going on the OP's description.

Maybe I'm not interpreting it correctly. I'm working off the same description.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i once rear-ended a taxi on my bike. totalled the frame.
a few people - non-cyclists, incidentally - suggested the taxi was at fault because it appeared that someone hailed him and he pulled in to the kerb (on a road with no cycle lane) and i hit the back of him.
i can't say if he indicated, as i was looking the wrong way at the time, and only looked up about 5 foot from his bumper, doing about 30kph, so obvious lack of observation on my part was the overriding factor as far as i'm concerned.

A friend of mine once got slightly distracted when out of the saddle and moving very quick in traffic. The next thing he knows he is in the back seat of a Volvo that had braked more sharply than him in front of him. He said the upholstery would have been comfier if it wasn't covered in bits of rear windscreen glass! He was slightly startled but otherwise unharmed. The bike's front wheel wasn't in great shape though. I'm pretty sure he covered the cost of the windscreen repair (as you would expect).

godtabh

eeguy wrote: »

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

Its not really a strange situation. Driver had no forward visibility. Reasonable to assume you drive at a reasonable speed until you have the required forward visibility for the speed you are driving.

Beasty

You never know what's going to be around the next corner and of course should drive accordingly

eeguy

godtabh wrote: »

Its not really a strange situation. Driver had no forward visibility. Reasonable to assume you drive at a reasonable speed until you have the required forward visibility for the speed you are driving.

I 100% agree with the thinking.

I just wonder if I put a traffic cone in a similar spot it would probably be hit 9 times out of 10.

I was driving on a road near Kinnegad where a humpback bridge is located immediately around a corner. You'd safely take the corner at 60 or 70km/h, then be confronted with this obstacle and easily find yourself in a similar situation with no warning. 80km/h road and no sign for the bridge.

Eamonnator

eeguy wrote: »

It's a strange set of circumstances alright, shame there's a "one law fits all" approach to the infinite variations on Irish roads.

If you're on a 80km/h road doing 50 and encounter a car stopped the far side of a blind hill you're still in the wrong.

A hill is just another type of bend.

godtabh

eeguy wrote: »

I 100% agree with the thinking.

I just wonder if I put a traffic cone in a similar spot it would probably be hit 9 times out of 10.

Probably but thats the fault of the drive not the cone.

eeguy

godtabh wrote: »

Probably but thats the fault of the drive not the cone.

But if 90% of drivers are at fault, then it's time to change the road.

godtabh

eeguy wrote: »

But if 90% of drivers are at fault, then it's time to change the road.

but until the road changes its still the drivers fault.

Whyner

So you could do 120 on the M50 and reach a standstill in 1 sec (hypothetically) and be free of any liability?

Dangerous driving and liability separate issues?

magicbastarder

check_six wrote: »

He was slightly startled but otherwise unharmed. The bike's front wheel wasn't in great shape though. I'm pretty sure he covered the cost of the windscreen repair (as you would expect).

in my case, i think the taxi driver was just relieved i wasn't bleeding all over the inside of his taxi - i didn't go through the rear windscreen, but tore my chin open just enough to need six stitches. he was all set to drive me to the mater, and insisted it was just a scratch on my chin. i asked him to drop me home instead.

magicbastarder

Whyner wrote: »

So you could do 120 on the M50 and reach a standstill in 1 sec (hypothetically) and be free of any liability?

Dangerous driving and liability separate issues?

if the road ahead is clear, do 120.
i'm not sure if you mean the context where you're following a car in front, you usually can allow for that car not being able to stop instantly - so you can factor in his or her braking distance as well as your own reaction time and braking distance. in most normal scenarios, anyway.

cython

Whyner wrote: »

So you could do 120 on the M50 and reach a standstill in 1 sec (hypothetically) and be free of any liability?

Dangerous driving and liability separate issues?

Bit of an absurd hypothetical scenario in the sense that it has no basis in reality, but if that kind of stopping force and response were actually possible, then it would definitely be expected for other drivers to give enough clearance to the vehicle in front to allow them to react to that particular manoeuvre. Of course if being able to come to a halt in 1 second like that was routinely possible, then assuming you have left space for a reaction, you should be ok if your car can also stop in 1 second. After all, the car in front could have a blowout and have to decelerate quickly without warning.

Of course as has been mentioned, there have been instances of "smash for cash" being proven and the driver behind not being automatically liable for it, so it is not always a hard and fast rule.

cdaly_

magicbastarder wrote: »

i say this with the fear of starting an argument about cyclists and insurance again, but is there anyone offering third party insurance to commuting cyclists?

Your household policy usually includes a third-party liability cover for the members of the household and is usually not limited to within the house. That should cover it.

cdaly_

eeguy wrote: »

I was driving on a road near Kinnegad where a humpback bridge is located immediately around a corner. You'd safely take the corner at 60 or 70km/h, then be confronted with this obstacle and easily find yourself in a similar situation with no warning. 80km/h road and no sign for the bridge.

"Safely take the corner" is not about how fast you can go around the corner without losing grip and skidding. It's about how far you can see the road to be clear. You should approach the corner at a speed that allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Any faster is not safe even though you'll get away with it 99% of the time.

07Lapierre

I deal with RTA's every day. I get Accident report forms sent to me all the time and I always get a laugh when I read the descriptions of the incident.

In EVERY case its ALWAYS someone else's fault! If there's no one else involved it's the fault of the road, the weather, etc. etc.

Some of the descriptions are very funny.

Eh the car in front stopped suddenly and "left me with no option but to run into him" ( no mention of trying to apply the brakes!

Oh and OP? IMO, your at fault, sorry.

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

I deal with RTA's every day. I get Accident report forms sent to me all the time and I always get a laugh when I read the descriptions of the incident.

my father used to work for an insurance loss assessor for a while. 'the car in front appeared out of nowhere' was a phrase used more than once in descriptions he heard.