Cyclist in collision with car - damage!

Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I was told the driver was stopped at a junction at the bottom of a hill. The cyclist was cycling head down and didn't even see that the car had stopped - admitted this himself. He noticed at the last split second and tried to swerve to avoid hitting the back of the car but didn't make it. Was more than happy to pedal off without even asking about the car! Obviously in this instance the driver cannot do anything about it now - not even sure what they could have done anyway. Damage is minor.
Sorry - editing to add that I was neither the driver or cyclist - simply a listening ear after the event! However I do cycle regularly and I do drive so am very aware when both cycling and driving of other road users. I am currently doing a lot of cycling with my 13 year old daughter and instilling in her the rules of cycling - stopping at lights, being very watchful of drivers turning left directly in front of her (not giving her a chance), and most of all the numbers of drivers who swing open the car door without even checking to see if there is anything coming beside them.
 
As far as I know, if a cyclist damages a car and doesn't immediately come to some arrangement with the driver to pay for damage then the driver will pay for the damage from their own pocket or via their insurance. If the cyclist disappears without giving a name, there's no one injured and no serious damage then the gardai will be disinterested at best.

I recall from several years ago that the government were considering legislating to ensure all cyclist-related accidents were paid for via the car owners insurance regardless of blame. I don't think it went beyond the speculation stages, however I mention it as I think it really was intended to formalize what was already happening.
 
It is a good question.
If a cyclist damages a car, what are the car drivers options?

Assuming that the cyclist doesn't provide these details willingly (because if they do then there is no issue).

Can they ensure the cyclist remains at the scene when they call the guards?

Can they demand that the cyclist provides proof of identity?

It is fairly straight forwards in the case of car drivers, with reg numbers and insurance certificates, and laws regarding the scene of an accident. But what of cyclists?

For the record, I cycle and drive (and also drive motorbikes), so there is no anti car or bike bias here.
 
Buddyboy said:
It is a good question.
If a cyclist damages a car, what are the car drivers options?
Click to expand...

Same options as if a pedestrian damages a car, by breaking a wing mirror or pushing their buggy or delivery trolley into the car.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Or a car driver scratching your parked car and driving off .
Click to expand...

Some lowlife reversed into my wife's parked car a few years back in a car park. She was legitimately parked in a disabled space and when we returned to the car there was about €100 damage to be repaired and no note either from the offending party.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Not really. Car driver has insurance and a number plate and other details that you can get to identity them. Other road users, like pedestrians, cyclists don't.
Click to expand...

Hi Albacore

I was referring to Steiner's low life types who damage your parked car when you are not in it, and just drive off.

Brendan
 
emeralds said:
None - unless they leave a note with contact details and offer to pay for the damage.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was wondering what RainyDay was adding to the thread.

The OP is very clear that in the incident described the cyclist was at fault.
The rest of the post was dependent on that premise.
I don't understand why some posters got their knickers in a twist about a non-existent anti-cyclist bias in a thread based on a hypothetical scenario (even if based on an actual event).
It was particularly funny that Brendan was accused of being anti-cyclist since if anything it's the other way around (sorry Brendan!).

I cycle quite a bit, usually to and from the pub. It that against the law? Who knows. ;)
 
Brendan Burgess said:
You, and W, are making extraordinary assumptions of an anti-cyclist sentiment on my part.
You and W should be very careful about the assumptions you make.
Click to expand...

Extraordinary statement to make in the circumstances . You have already admitterd that you assumed that the cyclist was the OP inthe first place which was absolutely the wrong . Now you accuse others of jumping to conclusions.
Kettle , Pot , Black etc
 
cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves...a friend of mine who was stopped at lights when a cyclist ran into the back of him..who then claimed and got 10 000 punts at the time,i kid you not

Pat
 
W200 said:
Extraordinary statement to make in the circumstances . You have already admitterd that you assumed that the cyclist was the OP inthe first place which was absolutely the wrong . Now you accuse others of jumping to conclusions.
Kettle , Pot , Black etc
Click to expand...

The OP wasn't clear on their role, as most people post personal experiences, I'm guessing most people assumed they were one party or the other in this incident.

Anyway, Brendan has admitted he was wrong. Your turn Kettle, or is there some other reason you seem to be going on the attack here?
 
Leo said:
Anyway, Brendan has admitted he was wrong. Your turn Kettle, or is there some other reason you seem to be going on the attack here?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed Mr Burgess has admitted that he was incorrect and I thank him for graciously admitting that.
In fact I had just read his explanation and was on the point of replying and thanking him until I read a subsequent comment from him accusing myself and another poster of jumping to conclusions and warning of the dangers of doing so. (Did you read that one Leo) That was the context in which I last posted.
If I originally jumped to a conclusion of anti-cyclist bias on the part of Mr Burgess then I apologise but it was based on his outright condemnation of the cyclist involved.
 
W200 said:
Yes indeed Mr Burgess has admitted that he was incorrect and I thank him for graciously admitting that.
In fact I had just read his explanation and was on the point of replying and thanking him until I read a subsequent comment from him accusing myself and another poster of jumping to conclusions and warning of the dangers of doing so. (Did you read that one Leo) That was the context in which I last posted.
If I originally jumped to a conclusion of anti-cyclist bias on the part of Mr Burgess then I apologise but it was based on his outright condemnation of the cyclist involved.
Click to expand...

If?
 
postman pat said:
cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves...a friend of mine who was stopped at lights when a cyclist ran into the back of him..who then claimed and got 10 000 punts at the time,i kid you not

Pat
Click to expand...

Motorists kill a couple of hundred people each year. Just for context like....
 
postman pat said:
cyclists seem to be a law on to themselves..
Click to expand...

Some cyclists....

...otherwise its all motorists are discourteous to cyclists and all motorists behave in a way that will lead to the serious injury of a cyclist


All cyclists know that that is not the case-but seriously, there is not a week (or hardly a day) that passes without either of these things happening me;
-motorist passes me withing feet of left turn, turns left, forcing me to go round the corner with them
-motorist pulls out from side road, forcing me to brake or take more serious evasive action
-motorist breaks red light
-motorist turns left without indicating
-motorist uses bike lane to undertake another car, that may or may not be turning right.
-motorist parks in cycle lane even though its a clear way during the time they are parked in it.
etc etc etc

All of these could result in injury to the cyclist -not the motorist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top