accident advise.

[danpalmer]

Hello.

Just stumbled upon this forum seeking advise on what to regarding an incident I had a couple of nights ago.

Where do I stand with insurance claim against this guy or should I report to police?

youtube link here.


came away a little bruise and a few parts on bike are scratched.

From the video you will see i was inches away of going over his bonnet.

 

[HonestMan1910]

Worth giving plod a shout and he gets a warning for driving without due care and attention, IMO

 

[ianrauk]

You were going to fast for the pinch point imo. You should have slowed down. The driver had no time to react to you as he was blinded by the van. You say he didn't even swerve. He couldn't. 7 seconds into the vid you was already at the pinch point. There was no where for him to swerve to.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

You were going to fast for the pinch point imo. You should have slowed down. The driver had no time to react to you as he was blinded by the van. You say he didn't even swerve. He couldn't. 7 seconds into the vid you was already at the pinch point. There was no where for him to swerve to.

+1, He could only have seen you about 2 seconds before you hit him, at that point he was in the pinch point and had nowhere to go and no time to do anything, as the van started to pull back to the left you should have been slowing down and looking for what might have been behind the van

 

[gaz]

I'm used to using a camera, so i understand that your eyes might not pick up on what the camera does. Any slight mistake you make and it will get highlighted ten fold here, just listen to the advice and learn from it.

At 0:03 seconds in it's possible to see the merc behind the van and that has alarm bells ringing for me. Whilst you do have priority over on coming traffic that doesn't mean you can just presume that everyone else will wait and check it is clear before going. So tread carefully in these situations, nice and slow keeps you safe, fast and unsighted puts you in danger.
Obviously what he did was totally careless and very dangerous.

I think if you take it to the police they will say 6 of one half a dozen of the other, you both acted carelessly in my opinion.

If all you have is some bruises and a few scratches to your bike then i would just write this off as experience. If you have this guys details then i would suggest giving him a call, apologies for the whole situation and in hindsight it was a 50:50 situation and you where both in the wrong.

 

[cloggsy]

Yes report him!

 

[Norm]

Others may feel different but IMO, you couldn't see that the road was clear any more than the other guy. You were there so suddenly that a Volvo even came through behind the Merc.

Six vs 2x3 in my book.

 

[apollo179]

If the priority is to traffic coming non pinch side then you have priority and all oncoming traffic should have given way. I dont see how arguements about oncoming vehicle being blind sided is valid at all. In the same way arguements that you were going to fast and appeared at the location to fast to expect oncoming traffic to react/give way are ludicrous.
If you had right of way then you have a clear cut case (legally).
Irrespective of legality. As a general rule for your own safety you are best advised to ride defensively at all times regardless if you have right of way or not. In the above scenario this would mean you would slow down so that you were able to avoid injury regardless of the actions of other traffic.

 

[ray.m]

He went through the pinch point blind. The sign indicates that you had priority over oncoming vehicles. He admitted that he did not see you, he should have done - no excuses.. I would report him to the police and let them decide if the driver is at fault.

 

[Norm]

If you had right of way then you have a clear cut case (legally).

This is the problem, though Apollo. Traffic regs don't give an unconditional right of way, they give you priority.

I think that the Highway Code summarises it well (does MrP still have this in his sig line?)

The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

 

[lulubel]

If you had right of way then you have a clear cut case (legally).

There's no such thing as "right of way".

 

[apollo179]

This is the problem, though Apollo. Traffic regs don't give an unconditional right of way, they give you priority.

I think that the Highway Code summarises it well (does MrP still have this in his sig line?)

Valid point Norm.
For "right of way" substitute priority.
In the end it amounts to the same thing. If you have priority then there is reasonable expectation that oncoming traffic should give way etc etc.
And Lulubell same - good point etc.

Note - i am not saying the op should sue or do anything. I say the op should just forget about it. These things happen all the time to cyclists , cars etc . But technically the oncoming traffic is at fault.

 

[Norm]

If you have priority then there is reasonable expectation that oncoming traffic should give way etc etc.
<<snip>>
But technically the oncoming traffic is at fault.

I don't think there's any disagreement that the other car should have ceded priority and was at fault for not doing so.

The point I was trying to make is that I cannot control the other car so I ride with an expectation that the stupidity of others sometimes seems to know no bounds, which leaves me happy when people do give way.

I am just a little concerned that you considered it "ludicrous" to ride to the limits of what you can see to be clear.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Irrespective of the Highway Code, in times of doubt I tend to work on the principle that 3/4's of a tonne of car trumps my scrawny knee every time.

 

[apollo179]

I am just a little concerned that you considered it "ludicrous" to ride to the limits of what you can see to be clear.

Norm - I said "
In the same way arguements that you were going to fast and appeared at the location to fast to expect oncoming traffic to react/give way are ludicrous."
This does not meant it is "ludicrous" to ride to the limits of what you can see to be clear."
It means that it is not a valid defence for the oncoming traffic to say that they were unable to give way in time because the cyclist appearred "so suddenly".
How can a cyclist appear on a straight road "so suddenly" that oncoming motorists are unable to give way - that is ludicrous.