CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 9 hours 49 min ago

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:55am
gaz wrote:It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.
OK, pedantry aside there are two lanes. Both of which need to be clear before you turn across them.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:50am
kwackers wrote:... it's not a dual carriageway in any traditional sense ...
It is not a dual carriageway in any sense. A central reservation makes a dual carriageway, not the number of lanes in any particular direction.

Leaving that aside IMO fault on both parts, driving off remains inexcusable.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

5 February 2016 - 9:41am
Tom Richardson wrote:Postboxer wrote:their own insurance won't be affected at all will it?

it will if they give an honest answer to the question on their proposal for about claims made against them. They've not shown any honesty so far so its a fair presumption that they are likely to lie about it again but its risky for them to do that - the hire companies insurer will match the claim with the hirer of the vehicle and make that info available to other insurance companies so there's a good chance of them being caught out. It will cost them in the long run.

Meanwhile the victim of the crime will be recompensed so they're no worse off so there's no loss to them (provided that they've made a claim like a motorist would in those circumstances).

And the criminals walk free unaffected by any laws they've broken.
The Great British justice system once again shown up for the farce it is..........

Re: something you don't see every day....

5 February 2016 - 9:20am
TonyR wrote:AndyBSG wrote:I wonder if it looked anything like this....

http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/12/van-drive ... 5-5560998/

No comment though on how the motorist managed to film all this or why his attention was not on the road but peering into the car in the next lane.

It was the passenger filming from the cab of a 7.5 tonne flatbed so they were elevated, hence the viewing angle.

If you watch it with the audio you can here the passenger narrating to the driver rather incredulously what's going on!

Re: The Poplar High St collision

5 February 2016 - 8:55am
If you wish to remain alive as an urban cyclist, you have to be aware of the risk of this happening. You have to be prepared to stop, especially if you are unsighted. Yes, you have priority, but the reality is that a sufficiently large minority of vehicles won't give it to you, so you have to take precautions, whatever the law is. I'd like to see a successful prosecution for a strike in such a case, then maybe drivers will begin to learn it is true. But ultimately until we have roads populated by saints, then caveat cyclista in such circumstances.

Re: KNOCKED OFF AGAIN!

5 February 2016 - 8:04am
I believe that when I am driving I am most likely to make a silly mistake (like the one described) when reversing. I assume the same applies to other drivers. It is stupidly easy to try to reverse quickly into the space you have just vacated without properly checking that somebody else has not occupied it. Lesson for driver: double check everything when reversing. Lesson for everyone: view reversing lights as alarms, warning you that you may need to get out of the way.

Re: The Poplar High St collision

4 February 2016 - 10:35pm
Similar thing happened to me many years ago in London. Driver didn't stop. Other drivers did, however, get out of their cars to make sure I was okay, for which I'm still grateful.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham3

4 February 2016 - 9:06pm
foxyrider wrote:Vantage wrote:The driver should have stopped regardless of who hit who but that clearly is entirely the cyclists own fault.

Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching. Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!
The car driver was crossing a marked (blue!) cycle lane. As described above, that is no different than crossing any other traffic lane. The driver is obligated to ensure it is clear.

I have to admit that it was not wise of the cyclist to cross the junction so quickly without good visibility, but IMO, the junction design is really poor.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham3

4 February 2016 - 8:09pm
foxyrider wrote:Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching.
Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!
So you'd be happy to swing across two lanes of traffic without making sure there was no traffic coming and if you happened to hit something whilst turning right you'd claim it was their fault?
Good luck with that.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 7:52pm
I have pruned out the Poplar High St collision into a new topic in "On the Road"

KNOCKED OFF AGAIN!

4 February 2016 - 7:42pm
I'm sorry Steve. I see bad stuff regardless of whether I'm on the bike or not. My Big Dummy has been wearing wideloaders this week and I'm pleasantly surprised how the 48cm extra width makes drivers pass carefully. In 'slim-mode' It doesn't seem to make a difference whether my daughter is on board or not.

I hope you get over the shock pronto and you heal quick. I'm glad you have found some traffic free routes. Hang in there...b

Brutal hit & run - Nottingham3

4 February 2016 - 6:25pm
Vantage wrote:The driver should have stopped regardless of who hit who but that clearly is entirely the cyclists own fault.

Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching. Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 6:25pm
Vantage wrote:The driver should have stopped regardless of who hit who but that clearly is entirely the cyclists own fault.

Agreed - obviously not looking at traffic behaviour and relying on others to do the watching. Couldn't see that it was the drivers fault at all, the bike hit the rear of the car so the 'in collision with a car' that the media like to use would, in this instance, be correct!

Re: Careless of inconsiderate driving?

4 February 2016 - 6:17pm
interesting stuff. I wear 'lycra' - there I said it. So I've personally had experience of the helmet phenomenom, it really does happen but something else strange too - pannier bags. If I ride without bags I get the usual treatment but same bike with a bag on and suddenly its like a target and everyone is aiming for me! This may be a response to all the 'nouveau' commuters riding through lights, on and off pavements and generally terrorising the populace, having no regard for law, safety or etiquette. One of these I had to actually talk to the other week after she rode up my inside when I was riding P1 (what happened to overtake on the right?), she was doing all of the above wearing a 'Sky ride leader' reflective - its no wonder drivers get irked by some riders antics when someone supposedly having some experience rides in such a poor way, it annoys me on my bike.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 5:59pm
Still no word on who it was who got the 6 points and £150 fine? How very strange...

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 5:58pm
The driver may completely get away with it though, as if they were essentially a named driver, and are claiming not to have been involved, their own insurance won't be affected at all will it?

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 5:50pm
AndyBSG wrote:But surely to make a civil claim you have to be able to identify who the claim is against which is what the crux of the matter is here?

Also, as it's a higher car will the actual driver even be the one who foots the ball or will it be the hire company?


A claim will go via the owner to their insurer no matter who was driving (unless it has been stolen but even then its possible for the owner to be held to be negligent and therefore liable to a claim against them).

Hire car is good because the hire company will make sure that its insured and claim can be directed at them.

The driver won't pay at all apart from a small excess. The insurer will pay. The driver will pay more next time their own car insurance comes up for renewal of course - when the answer questions about points on their licence and claims history. Some hire companies restrict hire to drivers with points on their licence as well so it will cause problems for them with future vehicle hire.

This incident involved a cyclist and like I said earlier its not unusual for cyclists to be reluctant to claim. Its very unusual for motorists not to claim even for the slightest bump. Cyclists need to become more like motorists in this respect and then motorists might be less inclined to drive in to them.

Re: KNOCKED OFF AGAIN!

4 February 2016 - 5:26pm
Remember that if there is an injury in an accident you should call the police. I hope you did - and that you got the driver's details.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

4 February 2016 - 5:12pm
Perhaps the discussion about the Poplar High Street video ought to be separated off into a different thread? The two cases have very little in common.

About

CTC

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions