liability in accidents

[PhilDawson8270]

For instance I have had more near misses at this abortion of a junction than I care to mention when drivers try to overtake immediately before the roundabout.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7...S2plKKVtb1_PUEqhcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

If you know it to be a potential hazard, and it happens often. Would it not make sense to reduce speed when approaching so you can stop if somebody does it?

driver may be in the wrong. But I certainly don't want to be hit by a car to prove a point.

 

[Drago]

If you run into the back of someone you need to have a damn good reason to show it wasn't your fault,

My oldest Daughter did this in her first car - her transport tales of woe were rather trying when she was younger, but she seems to be behaving now in her Porsche.

Anyway, the chap she shunted had no licence or insurance. Not only did my little girl not have to pay out, the MIB refunded her own losses. She got a serious finger wagging from me about lady luck can't be relied upon like that, probably ever again.

 

[Smokin Joe]

The rules of car-car collisions don't necessarily translate over to bike-car collisions, there are plenty of places where the road layout means that a car can move into the path of a cyclists if they then slam on the anchors when a metre in front of you you have no chance of stopping with pushbike brakes.

As I said in my post, "Unless the driver did something reckless like overtaking and pulling in immediately before the collision". And that is not a special exception for bikes, the same would apply if two cars were involved.

 

[KnackeredBike]

If you know it to be a potential hazard, and it happens often. Would it not make sense to reduce speed when approaching so you can stop if somebody does it?

driver may be in the wrong. But I certainly don't want to be hit by a car to prove a point.

Seeing as the risk is drivers hitting me from the side I do not think slowing (and thus potentially encourage overtaking even more than people do currently) would be particularly helpful.

Asides there are many unpleasant junctions or road layouts on my commute. 200m up the road is this opportunity to get crushed against a bus stop.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7...hC-aH5Yvo8bjz3n_Mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

If I slowed to a crawl for every one I would have a very slow and tedious commute.

 

[KnackeredBike]

As I said in my post, "Unless the driver did something reckless like overtaking and pulling in immediately before the collision". And that is not a special exception for bikes, the same would apply if two cars were involved.

And my point is that it's much easier to do something reckless especially like overtaking and pulling in on a pushbike. All of us will have experienced "punishment overtakes" on a not infrequent basis. Therefore the car rule of "if you hit the back it's your fault" is less universal for those on a pushbike.

 

[derrick]

Maybe she can't afford it, and maybe she won't be covered by her home insurance. The driver is more likely to have insurance and can claim on that if all else fails.

Why should the driver have to pay if it was not his or her fault?

 

[mjr]

I have seen a car do a 3 point turn in the road without checking mirrors

I thought self-driving cars used cameras rather than mirrors?

Why should the driver have to pay if it was not his or her fault?

Because some motorists insure against recoverable and unrecoverable losses as well as third-party claims. My household has had to pay for repairing the damage caused by scoundrels hitting our vehicles and running without leaving details (most recently last month) and at least this is one where the hitter had the decency not to run, even if the money might not be recoverable or not economically viable to try recovering.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Why should the driver have to pay if it was not his or her fault?

If she's been unable to recoup the cost from the other party, she has the option of falling back on her insurance. A bit annoying but what do you suggest?

 

[Drago]

It is always potentially part of the cost of driving to have to pay for damage to your car where there is no one else you can claim off.

This is true. It sucks, but that's sometimes how it goes. One of the benefits of running an elderly car is minor scratches on dings don't raise a sweat. Only a plum would spend 30 or 40 gees on a car and spend their lives fretting over stuff like this.

 

[derrick]

If she's been unable to recoup the cost from the other party, she has the option of falling back on her insurance. A bit annoying but what do you suggest?

I suggest the person who did the damage should pay, even if the person claims on insurance the premium will go up. so it still cost.

 

[Drago]

How would you propose that a child, with presumably no income, pay for the damage? Morally I agree they probably should, but as a practical matter it may simply not be feasible.

 

[Alan O]

Many years ago, a friend of mine had a young girl on a bike run into the back of his car and put a couple of scratches in it. Her bike was undamaged, but it was near Christmas and a couple of the presents she'd been out buying had fallen from her basket and broken.

She was badly shaken, so he got her bike in his car and took her home (they were more innocent days - I suppose men would be advised not to do that now). He didn't ask for damages cos the family didn't seem to have much - he was such a softie he instead gave her some money to replace her broken presents. There should be more like him.

 

[PK99]

She was badly shaken, so he got her bike in his car and took her home (they were more innocent days - I suppose men would be advised not to do that now)..

We have lost something very precious and valuable from our society. The old saying goes : It takes a village to bring up a child. Now, anyone offering help to a lone and distressed child is suspect.

 

[fossyant]

We may want another thread on the perceived implications of helping a child, so please keep on thread here. Having looked after children as a 'volunteer' and as a 'fella' there are 'issues' that may need to be discussed, but not on this thread.

 

[raleighnut]

If you run into the back of someone you need to have a damn good reason to show it wasn't your fault, and for that you'd need witnesses to testify that the driver did something reckless immediately before the collision, such as overtaking and cutting in without sufficient room. Claiming the driver braked suddenly won't wash, cars sometimes have to and it is for the following vehicle to leave enough distance for themselves to stop.

I speak as someone who spent two decades as a driving instructor and got rear ended at least half a dozen times (Something every ADI will have experienced a few times), on one occasion it happened twice in 90 minutes. All cases resulted in the other party's insurers paying up without quibble.

View: https://youtu.be/9OrKLGEOVRA