Just thinking

[Cuchilo]

Yesterday I saw a car pull out in front of a cyclist . The cyclist braked and came off but there was no collision . I just wondered , as there was no contact where does the cyclist stand on getting repairs ( if needed ) paid for by the driver ?

 

[vickster]

Without any sort of contact, I'd say the cyclist unfortunately. Unless the driver was prepared to help, if even aware of the cyclist coming a cropper!

 

[Cuchilo]

That's what I thought . Its made me even more aware when filtering !

 

[welsh dragon]

No. How would you prove that a driver was at fault. He/she would say you simply felt off. repairs would be the responsibility of the cyclist.

 

[vickster]

No. How would you prove that a driver was at fault. He/she would say you simply felt off. repairs would be the responsibility of the cyclist.

I suppose you might have more chance with a camera but unfortunately it would likely go down as a near miss of the type that happen often when cycling or driving

 

[welsh dragon]

I suppose you might have more chance with a camera but unfortunately it would likely go down as a near miss of the type that happen often when cycling or driving

I agree. A camera might help, if you don't have one then..... its a case of he said she said really. You wouldnt get anywhere.

 

[vickster]

When learning to drive I was told to be aware of side turnings, be prepared to slow/stop in case someone pulls out and I try to do this on the bike too. I find a fierce look and a shake of the head can have an effect If the driver shoots up to a junction and doesn't stop, not a lot you can do though!

Filtering I go very slowly, on the outside, usually no more than 12mph

 

[nickyboy]

Putting to one side the issue of evidence, if you suffer a loss (be that financially or through injury) due to the negligence of someone else then they are liable for this. Imagine you're a car driver, someone pulls out on you recklessly forcing you to swerve to avoid hitting them. In doing so, you crash your car into a lamp post. Who is liable for this? The driver who pulled out on you obviously.

In the same way, if the car driver pulled out recklessly while you were cycling forcing you to crash, he is liable. This presupposes that you, as the cyclist, did everything you could reasonably be expected to do to avoid the loss (you weren't going too fast for the conditions, you weren't looking around daydreaming, your brakes were correctly maintained etc etc). If you had some element of responsibility then that would obviously mitigate any compensation you might receive

 

[welsh dragon]

You have to prove it.. and insurance companies would argue that very thing. In the end you would probably only be able to claim off your own insurance if you have any.

 

[ianrauk]

I did actually saw similar happen on a commute a few years back. Cyclist just going that little too fast for the conditions. Over took me, traffic started slowing down. Car in front seemed to stop a little suddenly. Cyclist locked his brakes and went down, didn't hit the car. Jumped up and started shouting and mouthing off at the driver saying it was her fault, she'll pay for damage etc. I stopped and said that it wasn't the drivers fault rather then his as he was going too fast and that he should learn to read the conditions. He sheepishly got on his way. At the next junction I caught up with the car driver and said it was no way her fault and that some cyclists really aren't very good.

 

[nickyboy]

You have to prove it.. and insurance companies would argue that very thing. In the end you would probably only be able to claim off your own insurance if you have any.

Two different things

1) Who has the legal responsibility for the damages incurred.
2) Can evidence be provided to support any claim

If it happened to me as a cyclist the first thing I would do would be to get details of witnesses who could corroborate my statement. But to be clear, the law is very straightforward here. Only the provision of evidence is difficult.

 

[nickyboy]

I did actually saw similar happen on a commute a few years back. Cyclist just going that little too fast for the conditions. Over took me, traffic started slowing down. Car in front seemed to stop a little suddenly. Cyclist locked his brakes and went down, didn't hit the car. Jumped up and started shouting and mouthing off at the driver saying it was her fault, she'll pay for damage etc. I stopped and said that it wasn't the drivers fault rather then his as he was going too fast and that he should learn to read the conditions. He sheepishly got on his way. At the next junction I caught up with the car driver and said it was no way her fault and that some cyclists really aren't very good.

Quite so. A cyclist has a responsibility to cycle far enough away from the vehicle in front taking into account his own speed, his bike's braking capabilities, road conditions and the braking capability of the vehicle in front. Too close on a bike is same as too close in a car. If you hit someone in front (or crash avoiding someone) then you're still responsible

 

[welsh dragon]

In an ideal world yes. But as the op said. A car pulled out in front of a cyclist. It hasnt been said that the overtake was dangerous or to close for comfort. This story is 2nd hand or even 3rd hand. Its all ifs and buts, mighta coulda shoulda, and supposition.

 

[Cycleops]

In the world of motoring insurance the general rule of thumb is if a driver goes into the back of another car then it is generally deemed to be his fault. Driving too close, not taking account of road conditions, on a mobile etc.

 

[Cycleops]

​

Although that hasn't applied in cases where a driver has deliberately caused a collision by pulling in front of someone and standing on the brakes hoping to get some cash out of the other driver.

That would be a criminal act and not consistent with normal driving.