Collision this morning...

[gaz]

Well TBH I felt like my brakes should have given me more, I tried them afterwards and they worked fine so I dont know what went wrong.

I am tired of relying on the police to have a little word with the driver. Unless there is a real reason for their involvement, I see no point in reporting the driver. I would not class this incident as something the police would pursue. Remember the incident where the van driver got out of his van and gave me abuse? I reported that and have heard nothing back from the PCO who spoke to me.

If you don't keep trying then you won't get anywhere.

 

[Matthew_T]

If you don't keep trying then you won't get anywhere.

Alright then I will report it but as I am going to be busy tomorrow and up to Thursday, how recent must you report it?

 

[the snail]

The driver must report it within 24 hours, if there was damage or injury (which, strictly speaking there was). Place you a fiver the driver hasn't reported it... in which case the police could do him for failure to report.

There is no time limit on you reporting it.

Is there no responsibility for a cyclist to report an accident then? Does this only apply to motor vehicles - what if a cyclist hits a pedestrian?

 

[Cubist]

Only applies to drivers of motor vehicles, as it is related to the provision of details - including insurance details. As neither pedestrians or cyclists are required to hold 3rd party insurance then there is no need for them to provide details.

Yes and no. Only need to provide insurance details if there is an injury to any person other than the driver of the motor vehicle the presence of which caused the "accident"

Otherwise, accident is defined as "Where, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, damage is caused to
any other vehicle
any roadside furniture
any property adjoining the road
any animal*not being carried in the motor vehicle or any trailer being towed by it
* animal = horse, cattle, ass, mule, dog, pig, goose, sheep

the driver of the vehicle must
a) stop
b) give details of the vehicle (including VRM)
c) and details of the driver to any person who has good reason to require those details.

and d) In the case of an injury accident (injury is caused to any person other than the driver of that vehicle), then the name of the driver's insurance company.

If unable to furnish those details at the time, (for example hitting a wall at 3 in the morning, and not being able to determine who the wall belongs to) then the driver must report the accident to the police as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.

In the case of a due care as shown in the video, the driver should have stopped and furnished details. If he did not do, then he has committed offences. Generally the police will advise. After all, unless you are actively pursuing a case of obvious due care, then as long as you have details you can take action against the driver.

We really only get involved these days as arbiters, usually to ensure details are furnished, although we do tend to record injury accidents. After all, there are cases where injury may be caused but NOT the fault of the driver, so why would the police be involved?

In the case above your good old Heddlu ought to be prosecuting the driver for failing to stop and furnish details.

 

[Matthew_T]

The driver must report it within 24 hours, if there was damage or injury (which, strictly speaking there was). Place you a fiver the driver hasn't reported it... in which case the police could do him for failure to report.

There is no time limit on you reporting it.

I didnt tell him he hit my hand though. So how would he know?

 

[Matthew_T]

In the case above your good old Heddlu ought to be prosecuting the driver for failing to stop and furnish details.

Well he did stop but as he was pursuing the ridiculas claim of him "indicating to turn and therefore I was in the wrong for him turning across my path", he then drove off, saying that he was going home on the caravan camp (not sure how that was relevant).
He did have a small child in the passenger seat (could be a contributing factor to neglect or safety?).

The problem is that whenever I do have a collision with someone, I am more concerned with why they did it than getting their details.

 

[Mugshot]

He did have a small child in the passenger seat (could be a contributing factor to neglect or safety?).

Oh for crying out loud, Matthew you appear determined to be the poster boy for the cyclists war against motorists.
I'm going to be controversial here, I think you could have stopped, I think you had plenty of time to brake but decided to do a controlled side swipe into the car. I'll bet anything if you hadn't had a camera on you wouldn't have hit him. Then we get, yet again, you're on camera and I'm going to report you to the police.
I'm sure we'll get the usual defence that you're not very old, well you're 18 very very soon, so maybe you're old enough to stop acting like a child.

 

[BentMikey]

That's not very kind posting, or likely to match reality either. It'd be the thickest of cyclists who'd intentionally have a crash just to get some video footage on YouTube given the risk of serious injury.

Sometimes I despair when I see this sort of blame game going on amongst cyclists. It almost makes me think we deserve every bit of the mean stuff we sometimes get from motorists.

 

[Matthew_T]

I do not go out purposely endangering my own life. I have explained that something went wrong with my brakes and that for some reason I could not stop. I had both my hands tight on the brakes but dont know what happened, it was almost as if I had wet rims (which I didnt).

Why would anyone purposely endanger their own life just to get footage? Honetsly, I am not that demented on the roads. I might shout at people and try to get an apology but I never purposely crash into someone.

This situation was difficult and I didnt want to swerve around the car because that would put me in the immediate path of a minibus behind (who beeped). When I felt that the brakes werent working sufficiently, I chose to go up the inside of the car because I thought that it would cause the least amount of damager of danger to anyone.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'm going to be controversial here, I think you could have stopped, I think you had plenty of time to brake but decided to do a controlled side swipe into the car. I'll bet anything if you hadn't had a camera on you wouldn't have hit him.

Have you been hit by a car, Mugshot? I've been propelled roadwards by a bus, and a car (in separate incidents, obviously). And a diesel spill & a wayward cat, for that matter - those hurt too, but lacked the "OH MY F*CK I'M GOING TO DIE" feeling you have when you see all that metal rushing towards you, which is uppermost in collisions with motor vehicles.

It's terrifying, and it hurts.

I'm going to offer you the opinion that suggesting that people engineer accidents to make a point is pretty offensive and inflammatory, and almost certainly incorrect, however much you disagree with them.

 

[Hip Priest]

A classic left-hook. As far as I know, the best advice in such circumstances is to turn with the car, so you did the right thing.

 

[Matthew_T]

A classic left-hook. As far as I know, the best advice in such circumstances is to turn with the car, so you did the right thing.

If it had been a slower speed and I wider junction then I would have managed to avoid the car and turned the corner. The problem here though is that I was away from the curb a little because of the roadworks signs. And the car cut across my path dramatically.

 

[Mugshot]

That's not very kind posting

You're right, it isn't and I took a deep breath before pushing "add reply" knowing how it may be viewed.

I do not go out purposely endangering my own life. I have explained that something went wrong with my brakes and that for some reason I could not stop. I had both my hands tight on the brakes but dont know what happened, it was almost as if I had wet rims (which I didnt).

Why would anyone purposely endanger their own life just to get footage? Honetsly, I am not that demented on the roads. I might shout at people and try to get an apology but I never purposely crash into someone.

This situation was difficult and I didnt want to swerve around the car because that would put me in the immediate path of a minibus behind (who beeped). When I felt that the brakes werent working sufficiently, I chose to go up the inside of the car because I thought that it would cause the least amount of damager of danger to anyone.

I don't believe you did or do go out to purposely endanger your life, what I think is that in this incident you could have stopped in the space you had. I think you came up the side of the car and struck it with your hand.

Have you been hit by a car, Mugshot? I've been propelled roadwards by a bus, and a car (in separate incidents, obviously). And a diesel spill & a wayward cat, for that matter - those hurt too, but lacked the "OH MY F*CK I'M GOING TO DIE" feeling you have when you see all that metal rushing towards you, which is uppermost in collisions with motor vehicles.

It's terrifying, and it hurts.

I'm going to offer you the opinion that suggesting that people engineer accidents to make a point is pretty offensive and inflammatory, and almost certainly incorrect, however much you disagree with them.

I have been hit by a car and a motorcycle and very nearly crushed by a lorry amongst other things, you're absolutely right, it's terrifying. I think it's being a little melodramatic to suggest that this was an "I'm going to die" situation, but it does raise an interesting point with regards to reacting to situatons. I think my reaction if presented with a situation where my brakes had failed would be concentrating on finding an out, not in shouting out the drivers registration. Had I not found one and the driver had struck me, my first reaction would be "You hit me!" or words to that effect, not "Why did you overtake me?"

 

[Matthew_T]

, my first reaction would be "You hit me!" or words to that effect, not "Why did you overtake me?"

Well as he had the beleif that if you overtake a cyclist, cut in on them, and indicate, then you are in the right. He thought that just because he was indicating, I should have slowed down.
He was simply a nincompoop, and I was trying to understand why he chose to overtake me when he was just about to turn. The fact that he "lived on the caravan site" was just random and not related to anything. A junction is a junction and you do not overtake and then immediately turn in on anyone.

 

[John the Monkey]

... not in shouting out the drivers registration. Had I not found one and the driver had struck me, my first reaction would be "You hit me!" or words to that effect, not "Why did you overtake me?"

Not everyone reacts the same way, as I'm sure you understand. If I had the presence of mind, and a recording device on board, I might shout a reg too, so that at least there was a record of it somewhere. As for what one says after, that's pretty variable too. I think I asked why the driver that hit me (in the car incident) had come onto the roundabout (leaving unspoken "through me").

I'll say again, suggesting that a cyclist would deliberately engineer a collision really isn't on without some bloody good evidence. That the cyclist involved didn't react as you would have doesn't constitute good evidence, to my mind.