# Smashed into a stationary car and broke off wing mirror. Ouch,ouch,ouch



## bonker (24 Apr 2014)

Manoeuvring between two lanes of traffic, the left lane stopped just as I was checking behind so I didn't realise in time. I clipped a stopped car's wing mirror knocking it off. The impact threw me into the road, ouch.

It was only my second time out on my new Pearson , Now You See Me, which now has a scratched Brooks saddle and leather handlebar tape, and brake hood, ouch.

The old lady in the car was a bit confused so I left my details for her and helped her prop the dangling mirror in through the window. Got the bill today. £280, ouch.

Think I might get some insurance.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Apr 2014)

bonker said:


> Now You See Me


----------



## vickster (24 Apr 2014)

British Cycling Ride membership gives you 3rd party liability, £32 for a year (and legal cover if you get knocked off, Halfords & Wiggle discount etc)

GWS lovely Pearson bike  and hip


----------



## bonker (24 Apr 2014)

Clobbered my hip, hopefully it's just bruised. 

Which is the best organisation to join for the insurance in your opinion?


----------



## vickster (24 Apr 2014)

^^^ http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership


----------



## bonker (24 Apr 2014)

Thanks Vic. My incident was in Epsom so very local!

I'll look into BC.


----------



## vickster (24 Apr 2014)

Some dude bashed my wing mirror while doing similar...I gave him a right earful as he was trying to ride off...I don't think his English was very good given his bemused look when I asked if he was insured....no damage (was waiting at the lights leaving Cheam Tesco carpark minding my own business)

I clonked a wing mirror while trying to manoeuver into the bike lane on the A24 off the Ewell roundabout - 4x4 was across the lane, made a right racket, apology and driver seemed unperturbed, she even apologised


----------



## Tyke (25 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> British Cycling Ride membership gives you 3rd party liability, £32 for a year (and legal cover if you get knocked off, Halfords & Wiggle discount etc)
> 
> GWS lovely Pearson bike  and hip


+1 for BC it`s worth it for the peace of mind, your covered if you need it and can save more than it costs with the discounts


----------



## Luke Redpath (25 Apr 2014)

Please do get insurance, either through LCC or British Cycling, you might really need it one day.

A mate of mine got left hooked about 3 weeks ago. He arguably took some of the blame as he was filtering up the left hand side of stationary cars that were indicating left. However his (fair, in my view) assumption was that they were all indicating to turn left at the lights that were currently on red (left turn filter lane). As it turned out, one of the cars was turning into a concealed road and turned left right into him. The car wing mirror was damaged (Mercedes...not going to be cheap!) and he came of his bike and hurt his arm.

When I discussed this with him, I said I felt it was still mostly the drivers fault for not checking her mirrors but regardless, if he'd been a British Cycling member he could have just rung their legal helpline and let them deal with it and any potential claim in any direction. I told him to sign up!

Fast forward to the the weekend just gone...he'd not been paid so hadn't managed to get his membership. Out on a country lane bike ride with work colleagues...doing a fair speed, coming up to a sharp left hander and his brakes failed...despite best efforts he couldn't make the turn and went head first into a car coming the other way on the other side of the road. Over the bonnet, head first into the windscreen and then hit the side of his face on the kerb. All in all, it could have been really, really bad. Was taken to hospital and kept in for numerous scans and fortunately has got away without a concussion or other serious head injury or any broken bones. He's very lucky! Now, hard to call this anybody's fault really...a genuine accident, but if he'd been insured the car he had hit wouldn't have to claim on their insurance and/or potentially take civil action against him, which he is now worried about.

So do get it, please!


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

£280 for a wing mirror, more like £20 from a scrapyard and getting £260 out of you


----------



## fossyant (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> £280 for a wing mirror, more like £20 from a scrapyard and getting £260 out of you


 
It's not. Colour coded, electric and heated. £280 is cheap, and why should an old lady go scouring scrap yards for a mirror ?

Get insurance via BC or CTC.


----------



## Luke Redpath (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> £280 for a wing mirror, more like £20 from a scrapyard and getting £260 out of you



Why should the driver, whose wing mirror has been damaged through no fault of their own, be expected to have a second hand scrap part instead of a brand new manufacturer part?


----------



## Tim Hall (25 Apr 2014)

I'm not sure (read "very doubtful") that BC or CTC insurance will pay out for damage committed before the insurance was taken out. Their injury claim setup is a different matter, as it's a conditional fee arrangement (no win no fee).


----------



## mr_cellophane (25 Apr 2014)

Have you checked your household contents insurance. Most of them cover 3rd party. I specifically checked with LV for mine. Premiums are not the cheapest I could get, but it is worth it for that.
Might be a bit late for you either way if she has got a quote and everything.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Apr 2014)

Wing mirrors on modern cars are flippin expensive things. Next car I get will have a button wot I can press so it can retract its wing mirrors before I drive it into the garage. Not that a skilled individual like myself would ever need such a thing ...


----------



## .stu (25 Apr 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Wing mirrors on modern cars are flippin expensive things. Next car I get will have a button wot I can press so it can retract its wing mirrors before I drive it into the garage. Not that a skilled individual like myself would ever need such a thing ...


Theoretically, wouldn't have using said wing mirror prevented it's untimely demise?


----------



## Profpointy (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> £280 for a wing mirror, more like £20 from a scrapyard and getting £260 out of you



£280 to replace a cycle wheel. I can get a complete bike for £60 in Toys-r-us

(see what I did there?)


----------



## Tim Hall (25 Apr 2014)

.stu said:


> Theoretically, wouldn't have using said wing mirror prevented it's untimely demise?


Not in this case.The OP said the car was stationary and he rode into the mirror.


----------



## Dogtrousers (25 Apr 2014)

Tim Hall said:


> Not in this case.The OP said the car was stationary and he rode into the mirror.


 @.stu was referring to how I got to know how expensive mirrors are, and how narrow my garage door is, not the OP.


----------



## Tim Hall (25 Apr 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> @.stu was referring to how I got to know how expensive mirrors are, and how narrow my garage door is, not the OP.


Oops. So he was._ Mea culpa._


----------



## I like Skol (25 Apr 2014)

OK, I don't think I am going off topic here as the OP's contributions seem to be encouraging a debate about the pros' and cons' of liability insurance for cyclists?

I have been considering insurance myself for a good while (probably over a year ) and the suggested BC Ride membership sounds almost ideal except for 2 sticking points which forum members might be able to help me with?

Having briefly read the T&Cs I see that incidents between BC members are not covered. This is fine in as much as I consider it is intended to avoid claims following conflicts in a competitive environment. My problem is that as a mainly utility rider who does around 80%+ of my mileage on the commute with the rest on family and forum leisure rides. I can easily foresee a situation where I am randomly involved in a collision with another BC member (whether they are riding or driving) while on the commute or out and about in the countryside. The T&Cs specifically exclude this from the cover. I have just rung their help/info line and BC have confirmed that my understanding is correct but it is considered on a case by case basis and such an incident 'may' be covered once the situation has been reviewed by their legal panel??? Now I may be worrying about a slim chance here but I consider my scenario to be not insignificant given the growing popularity of cycling and BC membership. If I were to take out the Ride Membership I would like to know exactly what I am insured for, nor what they 'might' choose to cover!

The second issue I have is that I have 2 young sons age 8 and 11 that are also becoming keen cyclists and I enquired about the availability of a family membership (It would be foolish and hypocritical of me to insure myself but not them?). Single membership is £32. Family membership has to include 2 adults (no problem, my wife cycles maybe 1/2 a dozen times a year) and costs £72! Is it me or does that seem a bit steep?

What is the legal position on liability responsibility of minors? I know as a parent I may feel morally responsible to put right any damage they do but if something serious happened due to the actions of my young children would I or they be legally liable?

So what do I do? BC Ride membership sounded ideal until I looked in to it.


----------



## fossyant (25 Apr 2014)

BC Silver here, and it's worth it for the legal cover and access to Leigh Day Solicitors. Haven't needed the third party, even when leaving a head shaped dent in a taxi (my fault). As for minors, then they can't be held liable. 

If you were to say crash into a BC member's car by accident, then I'm sure they would cover you. It's more a mistake on the road like on a club run. There was that case where some club rider tried to sue another rider for not pointing out potholes.

Just get ride - it's cheaper than Silver.


----------



## subaqua (25 Apr 2014)

I like Skol said:


> OK, I don't think I am going off topic here as the OP's contributions seem to be encouraging a debate about the pros' and cons' of liability insurance for cyclists?
> 
> I have been considering insurance myself for a good while (probably over a year ) and the suggested BC Ride membership sounds almost ideal except for 2 sticking points which forum members might be able to help me with?
> 
> ...


 

CTC affiliate through Dell wot does the FNRttC 

or CTC full family membership for £50 for 18 months if you DD it.


----------



## compo (25 Apr 2014)

LCC for me £19 per year. (concessionary)
BC for me £32 (no concession available)

I guess I will stay with LCC.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Apr 2014)

I just checked, CTC does cover for other members


> 6. Am I insured against a claim made by another CTC member?
> Answer: Yes


Anything else seems crazy. An accident in a group ride is most likely to involve other group members, yet they aren't covered?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> Some dude bashed my wing mirror while doing similar...I gave him a right earful as he was trying to ride off...I don't think his English was very good given his bemused look when I asked if he was insured....no damage (was waiting at the lights leaving Cheam Tesco carpark minding my own business)
> 
> I clonked a wing mirror while trying to manoeuver into the bike lane on the A24 off the Ewell roundabout - 4x4 was across the lane, made a right racket, apology and driver seemed unperturbed, she even apologised


Um, you seem to have neglected your most notable encounter with a wing mirror

And that's a good example where having insurance means you don't have to even consider the driver making a claim against you. On less thing to worry about.


----------



## vickster (25 Apr 2014)

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that one


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

fossyant said:


> It's not. Colour coded, electric and heated. £280 is cheap, and why should an old lady go scouring scrap yards for a mirror ?
> 
> Get insurance via BC or CTC.



whos to say it was a colour coded electric and heated wing mirror?


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

Luke Redpath said:


> Why should the driver, whose wing mirror has been damaged through no fault of their own, be expected to have a second hand scrap part instead of a brand new manufacturer part?



why not have a second hand car part i doubt the car was brand new


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

Profpointy said:


> £280 to replace a cycle wheel. I can get a complete bike for £60 in Toys-r-us
> 
> (see what I did there?)


not really no what did you do? i doubt the women who had a basic cheap wing mirror got the most expensive as an upgrade, so whats your point....


----------



## Luke Redpath (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> why not have a second hand car part i doubt the car was brand new



Maybe not and if the owner is happy to accept a second hand part, that's up to them. But the point is it is up to them as they aren't at fault!


----------



## Kookas (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> not really no what did you do? i doubt the women who had a basic cheap wing mirror got the most expensive as an upgrade, so whats your point....



It may not have been the most expensive, doesn't mean she wants it to get even cheaper and tackier. And £280 won't buy you the most expensive wheelset, either.


----------



## fossyant (25 Apr 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> why not have a second hand car part i doubt the car was brand new


So you'd expect a little old lady to phone round a scrap yard or 4. For all we know the car may be quite new. Anyway, if a silly cyclist knocked my wing mirror off I'd expect a new one. 

Bikes only cost £60 in Tesco


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

well no if it was me i would of sourced a replacement in same colour condtion and sorted it for her that way she had no hassle and wouldnt even need to ring round 4 motorfactors and dealers etc to get it sorted or drive there to have it fitted


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Apr 2014)

bonker said:


> Thanks Vic. My incident was in Epsom so very local!
> 
> I'll look into BC.


given where you live, LCC.


----------



## Soup890 (25 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> British Cycling Ride membership gives you 3rd party liability, £32 for a year (and legal cover if you get knocked off, Halfords & Wiggle discount etc)
> 
> GWS lovely Pearson bike  and hip


I will sign up tomorrow. My filtering confidence has gone up been to risky lately.


----------



## fabregas485 (25 Apr 2014)

fossyant said:


> There was that case where some club rider tried to sue another rider for not pointing out potholes.


:O


----------



## theclaud (25 Apr 2014)

£280! That's absurd. If cars are so fragile and expensive and their owners are going to insist on preserving them without a blemish or a non-matching part, perhaps they should leave them in the garage where they can't get damaged.


----------



## nazzurro19 (25 Apr 2014)

^^ that was my point too but then people got upset haha


----------



## Profpointy (25 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> £280! That's absurd. If cars are so fragile and expensive and their owners are going to insist on preserving them without a blemish or a non-matching part, perhaps they should leave them in the garage where they can't get damaged.



yebbutt... what about the couple of hundred quid nice cycle wheel ? Or the Woodrup bike porn frame posted up a week ago - should we all have pub bikes ?


That said, I do kind of agree that some peripheral parts of cars are a bit flimsy & expensive


----------



## theclaud (25 Apr 2014)

Profpointy said:


> yebbutt... what about the couple of hundred quid nice cycle wheel ? Or the Woodrup bike porn frame posted up a week ago - should we all have pub bikes ?
> 
> 
> That said, I do kind of agree that some peripheral parts of cars are a bit flimsy & expensive



As you say, it's a peripheral, and one of the parts most frequently damaged in minor incidents. It ought to be cheap and simply replaceable. A bicycle wheel is not comparable, even before you get to the issue that drivers should not be getting anywhere near close enough to cyclists to risk damaging their wheels.


----------



## MisterStan (25 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> As you say, it's a peripheral, and one of the parts most frequently damaged in minor incidents. It ought to be cheap and simply replaceable. A bicycle wheel is not comparable, even before you get to the issue that drivers should not be getting anywhere near close enough to cyclists to risk damaging their wheels.


Surely a cyclist shouldn't be getting near enough to a car to risk damaging a wing mirror?


----------



## theclaud (25 Apr 2014)

MisterStan said:


> Surely a cyclist shouldn't be getting near enough to a car to risk damaging a wing mirror?



One wouldn't get anywhere fast in heavy urban traffic that way...


----------



## PK99 (25 Apr 2014)

Luke Redpath said:


> So do get it, please!



A guy i know was out on a CTC ride, the rider in front caused (i can'r recall the details) an off. 

My mate ended up with a broken hip and £40,000 compensation - all covered by CTC insurance.


----------



## MisterStan (25 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> One wouldn't get anywhere fast in heavy urban traffic that way...


Agreed, and I filter on every commute, but I think you know that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.


----------



## PK99 (25 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> £280! That's absurd. If cars are so fragile and expensive and their owners are going to insist on preserving them without a blemish or a non-matching part, perhaps they should leave them in the garage where they can't get damaged.



motorised mirror broken off by impact = non repairable - £280 is cheap!

Maybe cyclists with £500 wheels should leave them at home too??


----------



## theclaud (25 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> motorised mirror broken off by impact = non repairable - £280 is cheap!
> 
> Maybe cyclists with £500 wheels should leave them at home too??



See post #42 above. ANd that's not cheap. That's expensive gimmickry.


----------



## theclaud (25 Apr 2014)

MisterStan said:


> Agreed, and I filter on every commute, but I think you know that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.



I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't the OP's fault. But the poor chap is hurt, didn't endanger the occupant of the car, and on top of that he's going to have to fork out stupid amounts of money for an unnecessarily expensive bit of kit that everyone knows is likely to get clobbered.


----------



## bonker (25 Apr 2014)

Thanks all. It was my fault and I should have insurance. Wing mirrors are expensive to fix even when not smashed so be careful out there.


----------



## KneesUp (25 Apr 2014)

I destroyed a wing mirror on a Golf a few years back. Admittedly my 'weapon' of choice was 1.3 tonnes of car, but the destruction was impressive given I only hit it with the wing mirror of my car, which survived with barely a scratch. (In my defence I was driving down a road narrowed by parked cars on both sides and a Transit decided it could fit coming the other way. I'm a pretty good judge of such things and decided otherwise, so I had to choose between skimming the mirror or hitting a Transit)

Anyway, two things:

1) I'm glad wing mirrors are designed to shatter on impact. I'd rather be hit by something that breaks than something that doesn't

2) It took me some time to get back to the Golf as I had to park down the road and walked back. The owner was so pleased that I came back (he gets through a lot of wing mirrors, he said) that he said he'd take his car to the cheap place he'd found for wing mirrors rather than the VW dealer. I didn't claim on my insurance as it didn't seem worth it for the loss of no claims and £50 excess, so it cost me £250 - but that was 10 years ago. £280 isn't bad. Don't forget that you get someone to fit it for that too.

Oh, and 3 - I should get insurance. I crashed in to a taxi when I was a kid and the bonnet repairs cost £150 (in 1990) - I got in to a fair bit of trouble for that


----------



## Dan B (25 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> motorised mirror broken off by impact = non repairable - £280 is cheap!
> 
> Maybe cyclists with £500 wheels should leave them at home too??


Not exactly comparable. If a driver comes close enough to my bike to damage the wheels while I am riding it, he stands a pretty good chance of damaging _me_ too. 
If I had £500 wheels I wouldn't leave them at home but nor would I mount them sticking out to each side of my vehicle where I know they'd be the first bits to get damaged should anyone misjudge their distances.


----------



## Tin Pot (25 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> A guy i know was out on a CTC ride, the rider in front caused (i can'r recall the details) an off.
> 
> My mate ended up with a broken hip and £40,000 compensation - all covered by CTC insurance.



. . .
Um.
So, what bike did he get with that?

...Too soon?


----------



## KneesUp (25 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> Not exactly comparable. If a driver comes close enough to my bike to damage the wheels while I am riding it, he stands a pretty good chance of damaging _me_ too.
> If I had £500 wheels I wouldn't leave them at home but nor would I mount them sticking out to each side of my vehicle where I know they'd be the first bits to get damaged should anyone misjudge their distances.



On the other hand, wing mirrors don't work nearly so well if you keep them in the boot.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

KneesUp said:


> On the other hand, wing mirrors don't work nearly so well if you keep them in the boot.


True. Which is an argument for not making them so stupidly expensive, I'd have thought

Boat owners hang tyres off the side of their vessels. Usually they're _old_ tyres, not brand new Y-rated Michelin Pilot Sport.


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> he's going to have to fork out stupid amounts of money for an unnecessarily expensive bit of kit that everyone knows is likely to get clobbered.


Um, he's going to have to fork out the cost of a part he broke through his carelessness. Same as a car driver would if they broke an expensive bicycle part.


----------



## vernon (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> True. Which is an argument for not making them so stupidly expensive, I'd have thought
> 
> Boat owners hang tyres off the side of their vessels. Usually they're _old_ tyres, not brand new Y-rated Michelin Pilot Sport.



It's a specious argument as they are being used as shock absorbers and not for rear view purposes.

As for the cost of replacement electric mirrors - folk who damage them just have to man up and pay for their replacement. It's not for the 'victim' to decide pricing points. 

How many cyclists would accept Aldi/Lidl cycle clothing as replacements for their _old_ Rapha clothing after all the cheaper _new_ alternative does the same job as the more expensive stuff.

The anti-motoring/motorist faction sometimes need a dose of reality no matter how unpleasant it might be to them.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Um, he's going to have to fork out the cost of a part he broke through his carelessness. Same as a car driver would if they broke an expensive bicycle part.


He is paying for it. No one has disputed that it was his fault. But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable peripheries for use on a car on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive. If they were diamond-encrusted, would he be expected to pay for that as well? The proper comparison as regards damage to a bicycle is not being hit by a car, but being walked into by an inattentive pedestrian whilst stationary. I might be irritated if someone walked into me, but I wouldn't think it was reasonable for their mistake to cost them a week's wages if they knocked my gold-plated bar end plug down a drain.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> See post #42 above. ANd that's not cheap. That's expensive gimmickry.


Why is it expensive gimmickry? Nothing gimmickry in a heated electric remote control mirror with outside heat sensor built in, just makes common sense to me. There again I do not still watch black and white TV.


----------



## fossyant (26 Apr 2014)

Love my heated mirrors for when I do use the car on a frosty morning. Also helps clear rain off them. Not that I use my car much now.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

vernon said:


> It's a specious argument as they are being used as shock absorbers and not for rear view purposes..


There's nothing intrinsic in the design of a component used for rear view purposes that means it has to cost £400 every time it gets knocked off the car it's attached to. Even if it's heated and electrically controlled, there's no excuse not to make the bit which actually breaks cheap. I have an expensive derailleur mech attached to my expensive frame by a cheap replacable hanger, for exactly the reason that an easily foreseeable and common accident would otherwise result in an expensive repair.

The only reason the car manufacturers don't do the same is that the cost is covered by insurance


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

vernon said:


> How many cyclists would accept Aldi/Lidl cycle clothing as replacements for their _old_ Rapha clothing after all the cheaper _new_ alternative does the same job as the more expensive stuff.


If I'd left my expensive rapha cloting lying around at the side of the road or in a public car park I'd be very surprised if whoever drove over it even stopped to pick it up, never mind offered me anything towards its replacement


----------



## vernon (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> The only reason the car manufacturers don't do the same is that the cost is covered by insurance



If the cost is covered by insurance than the only people who have a grievance are the uninsured.


----------



## vernon (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> If I'd left my expensive rapha cloting lying around at the side of the road or in a public car park I'd be very surprised if whoever drove over it even stopped to pick it up, never mind offered me anything towards its replacement



If you were wearing the _old expensive_ Rapha clothing that was damaged as a result a collision with a car, would you accept cheap Lidle/Aldi cycling wear as a replacement - after all it does the same job as the Rapha stuff?


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> There's nothing intrinsic in the design of a component used for rear view purposes that means it has to cost £400 every time it gets knocked off the car it's attached to. Even if it's heated and electrically controlled, there's no excuse not to make the bit which actually breaks cheap. I have an expensive derailleur mech attached to my expensive frame by a cheap replacable hanger, for exactly the reason that an easily foreseeable and common accident would otherwise result in an expensive repair.
> 
> The only reason the car manufacturers don't do the same is that the cost is covered by insurance



Total rubbish, car manufacturers do not take into account what the insurers will pay, the insurers do though take into account how much a car may cost to repair. The majority of vehicles on the UK roads do not have fully comp insurance as you may know it , only about 1/3 even have glass cover. 

Lets face it a door mirror is not an item that gets knocked off of your car (if you even own one) everyday. In 41 years of high mileage driving it has not happened to me once.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

vernon said:


> If you were wearing the _old expensive_ Rapha clothing that was damaged as a result a collision with a car, would you accept cheap Lidle/Aldi cycling wear as a replacement - after all it does the same job as the Rapha stuff?


Most would be the opposite, claim for Rapha whilst wearing Lidl/Aldi although of course they will deny it on here.


----------



## jefmcg (26 Apr 2014)

And you can't buy matching ones of the shelf, can you? I thought they had to be painted to match, as the spare might be from a different dye lot, or the car may have faded somewhat since new.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> Why is it expensive gimmickry? Nothing gimmickry in a heated electric remote control mirror with outside heat sensor built in, just makes common sense to me. There again I do not still watch black and white TV.



Ah, "common sense"! This is not difficult. Wing mirrors are knocked off all the time. It is close to inevitable that your wing mirror will get knocked off at some point, whether it's your fault or someone else's. Therefore it should be cheaply replaceable.


----------



## vickster (26 Apr 2014)

but they aren't and as the OP knocked one off he should cover the cost of the replacement whatever it may be. He should be happy he didn't hit a Bentley or similar!

And join BC/CRC/LCC or similar ASAP.


----------



## vernon (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Ah, "common sense"! This is not difficult. Wing mirrors are knocked off all the time. It is close to inevitable that your wing mirror will get knocked off at some point, whether it's your fault or someone else's. Therefore it should be cheaply replaceable.



As should Rapha cycling wear....it's close to inevitable that cyclists get hit by cars you know.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Ah, "common sense"! This is not difficult. Wing mirrors are knocked off all the time. It is close to inevitable that your wing mirror will get knocked off at some point, whether it's your fault or someone else's. Therefore it should be cheaply replaceable.


See my other post about how often they are knocked off, not forgetting this is my trade so I will know.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

Some people want cheap and some people want quality, I and many others prefer the latter.


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable peripheries for use on a car on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive.


"But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable bicycles for use on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive."

There are two points here. First, each of the three things that makes modern car mirrors expensive are safety features. Electrically-adjustable means people do actually adjust them properly. Heated means they continue to work well in weather conditions which would obscure cheap ones. And indicators in mirrors makes them more visible. It's not frippery.

Second, it's not for the victim to justify the cost of their possessions when someone else damages them. As others have said, if a car driver (or jogger, if you prefer) collides with a cyclist, are they entitled to complain that the cyclist should not have been wearing "unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable" Rapha clothing and riding an "unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable" bicycle when they should have been wearing Lidl clothes and riding a BSO bought from Tesco?


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> See my other post about how often they are knocked off, not forgetting this is my trade so I will know.


I thought you banged dents out of cars, not replaced mirrors...


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> See my other post about how often they are knocked off, not forgetting this is my trade so I will know.


The passenger door mirror was knocked off my car less than three months after I bought it brand new. Whoever did it (I suspect the bin lorry) didn't even stop and possibly didn't even notice


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

vernon said:


> If the cost is covered by insurance than the only people who have a grievance are the uninsured.


And the rest of us who pay through increased premiums


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> I thought you banged dents out of cars, not replaced mirrors...


I do not bang dents out, I massage them out, big difference. However I seldom come across a car that has had the mirror knocked off completely, scratched and marked yes but not full off often. 

The other thing to remember is that door mirrors are like bikes not all the same price, maybe the OP picked on the wrong car and should choose maybe a Ford Focus next.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> "But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable bicycles on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive."
> 
> There are two points here. First, each of the three things that makes modern car mirrors expensive are safety features. Electrically-adjustable means people do actually adjust them properly. Heated means they continue to work well in weather conditions which would obscure cheap ones. And indicators in mirrors makes them more visible. It's not frippery.
> 
> Second, it's not for the victim to justify the cost of their possessions when someone else damages them. As others have said, if a car driver (or jogger, if you prefer) collides with a cyclist, are they entitled to complain that the cyclist should not have been wearing "unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable" Rapha clothing and riding an "unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable" bicycle when they should have been wearing Lidl clothes and riding a BSO bought from Tesco?



All the distractions notwithstanding, it's just property fetishism. I'm sorry but I don't buy the safety feature thing - perhaps I would if people with expensive modern cars appeared to use their absurdly expensive mirror units more effectively than people with cheap old clangers. You can't destroy someone's clothing while they are wearing it without effectively assaulting them. If you have damaged their clothing _with a car_, you are doing something seriously wrong. You can, on the other hand, damage a wing mirror without endangering the car occupant in any way. Which is why we shouldn't get excited about it.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> *I do not bang dents out, I massage them out, big difference.* However I seldom come across a car that has had the mirror knocked off completely, scratched and marked yes but not full off often.
> 
> The other thing to remember is that door mirrors are like bikes not all the same price, maybe the OP picked on the wrong car and should choose maybe a Ford Focus next.



It's possible that I knew that, and chose not to flatter your sense of professional importance.

Fair enough - I've not often seen one knocked off completely either - it doesn't much matter if someone is demanding an extortionate amount to replace it nevertheless.


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> All the distractions notwithstanding, it's just property fetishism.


You could equally argue that expensive bicycles are 'property fetishism'. The point is, people are free to spend their own money in whatever manner they choose, and if you carelessly damage their property, it's your responsibility to pay for it whether or not you agree with their choices.



> You can't destroy someone's clothing while they are wearing it without effectively assaulting them.


Of course you can. If a pedestrian carelessly steps into the road in front of you and you fall from your bike as a result, your clothing is very likely to get ripped.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> You could equally argue that expensive bicycles are 'property fetishism'. The point is, people are free to spend their own money in whatever manner they choose, and if you carelessly damage their property, it's your responsibility to pay for it whether or not you agree with their choices.
> 
> 
> Of course you can. If a pedestrian carelessly steps into the road in front of you and you fall from your bike as a result, your clothing is very likely to get ripped.



If you fall off your bike as a result of a pedestrian crossing the road, then you probably weren't riding with sufficient care and observation. Contrary to popular belief, they don't come out of nowhere.


----------



## vickster (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> If you fall off your bike as a result of a pedestrian crossing the road, then *you probably weren't riding with sufficient care and observation*. Contrary to popular belief, *they don't come out of nowhere*.


And ditto with knocking off a wing mirror while filtering...nor do wing mirrors in a stationary queue of traffic...


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> If you fall off your bike as a result of a pedestrian crossing the road, then you probably weren't riding with sufficient care and observation. Contrary to popular belief, they don't come out of nowhere.


You clearly don't cycle much in London ...

For the record, I have never collided with a pedestrian, but I have seen a great many pedlemmings in action. Contrary to your view, they can and do change direction instantly and step in front of vehicles without looking.

But this is irrelevant: the point is that people can spend their money as they choose, and if you damage their property through your carelessness, you pay. Whether the property you damage costs 50p of £5000 is immaterial.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> You clearly don't cycle much in London ...
> 
> For the record, I have never collided with a pedestrian, but I have seen a great many pedlemmings in action. Contrary to your view, they can and do change direction instantly and step in front of vehicles without looking.
> 
> But this is irrelevant: the point is that people can spend their money as they choose, and if you damage their property through your carelessness, you pay. Whether the property you damage costs 50p of £5000 is immaterial.



I cycle in London a lot. Sometimes quite drunk. I've never hit a pedestrian, although I concede there are times and places where pedestrian behaviour makes cycling progress difficult. There we are then, as we say down here. It may be irrelevant, but then you brought it up.

Where does our duty to safeguard the fragile and expensive property of others in public spaces end, just out of interest? If I set up a table on a pavement in a bustling street and someone knocks my crystal wine glass over in passing, are they being unduly careless? If I park a my Bentley outside a children's playground, can I go apesh1t when a football hits it?


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Where does our duty to safeguard the fragile and expensive property of others in public spaces end, just out of interest? If I set up a table on a pavement in a bustling street and someone knocks my crystal wine glass over in passing, are they being unduly careless? If I park a my Bentley outside a children's playground, can I go apesh1t when a football hits it?


If you were legally entitled to set up your table on the pavement (unlikely unless you own a restaurant and have the necessary permit), and the car was legally parked, yes. 

It's no different from using cheap lock to secure your expensive bicycle then leaving it there for two days. It would be extremely ill-advised, but the thief would still be responsible for their actions.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> And ditto with knocking off a wing mirror while filtering...nor do wing mirrors in a stationary queue of traffic...


I've willingly conceded the fault issue in the case of the OP. It's not about fault, it's about proportion, property, and the fitness of things for their purpose. Cars are clearly not designed to be suitable for mixing it in busy public spaces.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

If your Bentley had a fine crystal glass as a hood ornament, anyone who broke it should have to pray the full price plus interest. Anything not attached to a car though, it's your own stupid fault for leaving it outside

Hope that explains it


----------



## jefmcg (26 Apr 2014)

They really don't break off that easily: I think the OP will confirm that he hit the thing pretty hard to knock it off. 

They would be a lot sturdier if they didn't break off so easily, but that's a safety feature. If the mirror was backed with a rod of steel, it would probably still be attached to the car, but the OP would be in hospital now, not rubbing his knee and stuck with a bill.

(two thumbs up for to @bonker for not being an a*rse and fleeing the scene, which would be easy to do with cars stuck in traffic)


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

Maybe theclaud wants everybody to work for a lot less than the minimum wage so that things can be cheaper.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

Nobody has yet addressed the question of why they don't make it easy/cheap to replace the bit that breaks. Like gear hangers. Or fuses.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> Nobody has yet addressed the question of why they don't make it easy/cheap to replace the bit that breaks. Like gear hangers. Or fuses.


They do, the main part that gets damage is the cover, these can be very cheap to buy, some even come ready colour coded. A complete mirror is seldom needed as I pointed out earlier.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> I have seen a great many pedlemmings in action. Contrary to your view, they can and do change direction instantly and step in front of vehicles without looking.


Step, yes. Leap, much less commonly.


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> Step, yes. Leap, much less commonly.





Most of us here are very experienced cyclists who know how to stay out of other people's accidents, but that doesn't change the fact that pedestrians can and do cause collisions.


----------



## jefmcg (26 Apr 2014)

years and years and years ago I remember a comedy rant by an American, about Japanese cars with their crumple zones and fuel economy, and reminiscing about the big american cars, with their huge engines and fins:

"You crash one of those, they hose you off the dashboard and pass the car on to its next owner"


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> Maybe theclaud wants everybody to work for a lot less than the minimum wage so that things can be cheaper.



What a strange conclusion to come to.


----------



## Dan B (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


>



My point exactly. The pedestrian was moving at, what, 3mph?


----------



## Foghat (26 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> I've willingly conceded the fault issue in the case of the OP. It's not about fault, it's about proportion, property, and the fitness of things for their purpose. Cars are clearly not designed to be suitable for mixing it in busy public spaces.


 tudles old girl, surely it's a good thing that at least part of a car's perimeter is a fragile item vulnerable to costly consequences when driving too close to cyclists.

Your Bentley's rear-view Riedels ought to be specified on all cars.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Foghat said:


> tudles old girl, surely it's a good thing that at least part of a car's perimeter is a fragile item vulnerable to costly consequences when driving too close to cyclists.
> 
> Your Bentley's rear-view Riedels ought to be specified on all cars.



Ah, Foggers! There you are. Fragile is fine by me. Expensiveness does not appear, at least on casual observation, to produce better driver behaviour. I am not arguing for tougher cars - I am suggesting that their owners ought to either adopt a less precious approach to minor damage, or keep them somewhere where they won't come into contact with other people.


----------



## bonker (26 Apr 2014)

I've been cycling for over 40 yeRs and this is the first collision with a car I have had. I am now a member of B C. It was my fault. I have paid up. Wing mirrors are expensive. I have no idea why it happened. I don't hate all motorists. 

Herne Hill was a blast.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> Nobody has yet addressed the question of why they don't make it easy/cheap to replace the bit that breaks. Like gear hangers. Or fuses.



Evans - to give one example - sells a gear hanger that is £60. For a tiny bit of funny shaped metal with no moving parts.

There are a few of those in a mirror, as well as motors in some, heaters, wiring, a few types of precision moulded plastic and a temperature sensor in others. As well as a precision cut piece of mirror.

If they were priced like gear hangers they'd be about a grand.


----------



## Tim Hall (26 Apr 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Evans - to give one example - sells a gear hanger that is £60. For a tiny bit of funny shaped metal with no moving parts.
> 
> There are a few of those in a mirror, as well as motors in some, heaters, wiring, a few types of precision moulded plastic and a temperature sensor in others. As well as a precision cut piece of mirror.
> 
> If they were priced like gear hangers they'd be about a grand.


Drifting slightly OT: The Girl bought a bike from Evans. Some time later she spanged the gear hanger, so I went to the shop to get a new one. The young feller me lad behind the counter informed me that a spare would have been shipped with the bike, tucked in that natty green folder full of important documents that no one reads.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Apr 2014)

The mirror is £280.

Some peeps have a strange idea of what is expensive.

Lots of people's cycling tops are more than that.

The mirrors on my previous car were £600 each.

Replace car with cyclist and a bike part was hit. Many bike parts are "expensive".

Peeps have lots of stuff hanging off them that's "expensive", be that an item of clothing, a camcorder, mobile phone or whatever. If someone caused damage to one of them then generally you'd expect to be put right.

It's called living in a capitalist society. Whether we like it or not, private posessions are in some ways "public goods".


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> My point exactly. The pedestrian was moving at, what, 3mph?


Well, yes, pedestrians rarely do 200mph. They do, however, do dumb shoot like that.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Apr 2014)

400bhp said:


> The mirror is £280.
> 
> Some peeps have a strange idea of what is expensive.
> 
> ...



My previous whole car was £700. I went crazy with this one and spent as much as two of your mirrors 

Price, cost and value are strange concepts!


----------



## CopperBrompton (26 Apr 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Price, cost and value are strange concepts!


Not strange, just personal. There are plenty of car drivers who can't believe the idea of spending £3k+ on a bicycle.


----------



## screenman (26 Apr 2014)

KneesUp said:


> My previous whole car was £700. I went crazy with this one and spent as much as two of your mirrors
> 
> Price, cost and value are strange concepts!


So does that make you smarter? I am yet to meet a honest person who would not like a better car.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Not strange, just personal. There are plenty of car drivers who can't believe the idea of spending £3k+ on a bicycle.



No, actually he has a point.

The mirrors weren't "worth" £600. They were that much because of a very limited supply and a very high demand.

We just come back to living in a capitalist society. It is what it is.


----------



## KneesUp (26 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> So does that make you smarter? I am yet to meet a honest person who would not like a better car.



I have no idea.

It means when I needed a car the car before this one I only had £700 spare, and when I needed a car to replace that one because it was written off for me, the insurance company gave me a cheque for £1200.

I don't think you can make any inference as to my intellect from that though, although one might assume that if I were cleverer, less averse to borrowing money to spend on depreciating assets, more ruthless or better at football I might have had rather more than £700 to hand I suppose.

What was your point though?

Incidentally, I don't know what you mean be "a better car" - I've done more expensive, I've done fast, I've done small, I've done slow, and I've done large. And actually, all that matters is can I fit the camping stuff in, is it reliable, does it cost a fortune (total ownership), is everyone comfortable and does the air conditioning work. Beyond that I've discovered that not much truly matters, although the fast ones were more fun on quiet Scottish roads - but as I live in Yorkshire that's not a massive consideration.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (26 Apr 2014)

I don't want a better car.
Got rid of a BMW 3 series cos it was crap. Bought a Suzuki Swift cos it's cheap, frugal, practical and fun.
I've got better things in life to spend my money on. My priorities changed.
Does that mean I'm not honest?


----------



## Profpointy (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> So does that make you smarter? I am yet to meet a honest person who would not like a better car.



I'm not fussed about a better car - and if I won the lotto I'd not replace it till it conks out to be honest.
(£2500 Saab - though I dare say first owner dropped £30k on it, which does give me a smug feeling)


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Not strange, just personal. There are plenty of car drivers who can't believe the idea of spending £3k+ on a bicycle.



There are plenty of cyclists who can't believe the idea of spending £3k+ on a bicycle!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Apr 2014)

I'd like better knees, then I'd justify a bike upgrade.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> £*280! That's absurd.* .



Door mirrors are a lot more than a mirror in a bit of plastic
mirror
indicator
heater
motorised adjuster
motorised "folder"

http://www.lingshondaparts.com/hpl/images_car/17SMG601/imge/B__4300.jpg

plus of course the labour at ??£100/hour?? to fit the replacement. the honda civic mirror shown above needs the interior door panel removed to replace the mirror.

Replacing a bit like that on a car is like replacing the chainset on a bike - hugely expensive compared to the cost on a new bike


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> As you say, it's a peripheral, and *one of the parts most frequently damaged in minor incidents*. It ought to be cheap and simply replaceable. A bicycle wheel is not comparable, even before you get to the issue that drivers should not be getting anywhere near close enough to cyclists to risk damaging their wheels.



Evidence to support that assertion? In most minor accidents (where the impact is from the front) the mirror works as intended and folds safely away, in the case in question the careless cyclist hit the mirror from behind.

i my experince, "wing mirror clashes" in slow moving traffic, with a car passing either direction who gets too close has never resulted in damage as one or other mirror folds or springs.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Apr 2014)




----------



## screenman (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> Evidence to support that assertion? In most minor accidents (where the impact is from the front) the mirror works as intended and folds safely away, in the case in question the careless cyclist hit the mirror from behind.
> 
> i my experince, "wing mirror clashes" in slow moving traffic, with a car passing either direction who gets too close has never resulted in damage as one or other mirror folds or springs.


My thoughts as well, does theclaud own a car?


----------



## screenman (27 Apr 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I don't want a better car.
> Got rid of a BMW 3 series cos it was crap. Bought a Suzuki Swift cos it's cheap, frugal, practical and fun.
> I've got better things in life to spend my money on. My priorities changed.
> Does that mean I'm not honest?



No that means you do not have as much money as you would like. Maybe you had a crap BMW rather than BMW are crap.


----------



## KneesUp (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> No that means you do not have as much money as you would like. Maybe you had a crap BMW rather than BMW are crap.



Given that the fundamental purpose of a car is to move - or, in the words as Basil Fawlty "If you're not going to start there isn't much point in having you" then I would argue that BMW don't qualify as a 'good car' given their unreliability.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9815860/German-cars-lose-out-in-reliability-survey.html


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

400bhp said:


> The mirrors weren't "worth" £600.


Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Well, yes, pedestrians rarely do 200mph. They do, however, do dumb **** like that.



Indeed they do. So we should ride/drive accordingly.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> My thoughts as well, does theclaud own a car?



Haven't we been through this before? I don't intend ever to own a car again. Not least because car ownership appears to be detrimental to thinking straight. I drive a sprinter/transit for work, but not on an everyday basis. The mirrors are not fancy.


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Indeed they do. So we should ride/drive accordingly.


Indeed, just as we should avoid cycling into wing mirrors. If we fail, we pay up.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Indeed, just as we should avoid cycling into wing mirrors. If we fail, we pay up.



People, cars... different things.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.



Perhaps.

Price of everything and the value of nothing.....

Depends how you look at it.


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> People, cars... different things.


People, bicycles... different things.


----------



## BrianEvesham (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> I am yet to meet a honest person who would not like a better car.


I am an honest person who doesn't want a better car. I hate wasting money on cars. My last purchase 3 years ago was an Astra G for £750, it's been faultless requiring nothing doing, even for its mot's.


----------



## Dan B (27 Apr 2014)

Given the number of vehicles (to be fair, more vans than cars) I see with door mirrors apparently held on by gaffer tape, I question the assertion that a broken mirror is a rare occurence. 


theclaud said:


> People, cars... different things.





Trikeman said:


> People, bicycles... different things.



You are both correct. theclaud's point I take to be that violence against the person (witting or unwitting) is - at least in her world view - a much more serious proposition than violence against inanimate objects, so analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies. Trikeman I'm not sure what your point is. Is anyone offering analogies in which damage to people and damage to bicycles is being compared?


----------



## Dan B (27 Apr 2014)

I believe myself to be a reasonably honest person, but I have to say the only ways in which I'd want my car to be better woud be that it had inifinite luggage space, ran on air, and could fold up into my pocket when I arrive at my desitination so I had no trouble finding parking. But then it wouldn't really be a car by the currentlly accepted definition. 

That said, if the casing on the nearside door mirror were fixed, that would be a bonus


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> theclaud's point I take to be that violence against the person (witting or unwitting) is - at least in her world view - a much more serious proposition than violence against inanimate objects


Of course it is. What has that to do with paying for property we damage?


----------



## Dan B (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Of course it is. What has that to do with paying for property we damage?


Analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies. 

Sorry, I thought I'd already said that in the post you responded to


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

Dan B said:


> Analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies.


If someone damages a cyclist's property without injuring the cyclist, should they be able to refuse to pay for it because they considered the property unnecessarily expensive? That is the only question being asked here.


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> He is paying for it. No one has disputed that it was his fault. But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable peripheries for use on a car on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive.



Aren't modern STI brifters a decent comparison with modern wing mirrors? They stick out, they're vulnerable and they are idiotically expensive. And - like heated/automatic wing mirrors they are pure optional gimmickry. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are more gimmicky than heated/automatic mirrors, as the latter offer some genuine benefits, whereas brifters offer the sum total of sod all, apart from not needing to move your hand a few inches to the downtube.

An now consider how expensive those brifters are as a percentage of the whole bike. Jeez, we're talking about 10-20% of the price of the bike in some cases. And for what? Saving a brief straightening of the elbow joint. Bah!

So what point am I making? Well none really. 

I'm just being an old fart who rather regrets having spent money on a modern bike only to find that he really prefers shifters on the down tube having a rant at the world. Don't mind me. I'm going for a lie down now.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Aren't modern STI brifters a decent comparison with modern wing mirrors? They stick out, they're vulnerable and they are idiotically expensive. And - like heated/automatic wing mirrors they are pure optional gimmickry. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are more gimmicky than heated/automatic mirrors, as the latter offer some genuine benefits, whereas brifters offer the sum total of sod all, apart from not needing to move your hand a few inches to the downtube.
> 
> An now consider how expensive those brifters are as a percentage of the whole bike. Jeez, we're talking about 10-20% of the price of the bike in some cases. And for what? Saving a brief straightening of the elbow joint. Bah!
> 
> ...



I'll have your unwanted STIs then, you old fart.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> If someone damages a cyclist's property without injuring the cyclist, should they be able to refuse to pay for it because they considered the property unnecessarily expensive? That is the only question being asked here.



It's the only question you're asking, but then you have a talent for oversimplification.


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's the only question you're asking, but then you have a talent for oversimplification.


I've been onto the Nuance shop - they're getting some more stock in on Tuesday.


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> I'll have your unwanted STIs then, you old fart.


You know, if you could source and fit shifters for my downtube that index OK with my 10 speed SRAM mech I might even consider it. I think friction-shifting a 10 speed might be a bit fiddly.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Trikeman said:


> I've been onto the Nuance shop - they're getting some more stock in on Tuesday.


I notice that marinyork, CC's master of nuance, has been AWOL for a while. Perhaps that accounts for the upsurge in crude simplification.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> I think friction-shifting a 10 speed might be a bit fiddly.



Nonsense. Piece of p1ss.


----------



## CopperBrompton (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Nonsense. Piece of p1ss.


This charm offensive you're on this weekend is getting a bit cloying now.


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Shimano Dura-ace any good?


Dunno. It's all complicated stuff about cable-pulls and stuff. I was only kidding really - now I've bought my fancy bike I'm going to ride it as is but if ever I build my dream bike it will be different.


----------



## screenman (27 Apr 2014)

BrianEvesham said:


> I am an honest person who doesn't want a better car. I hate wasting money on cars. My last purchase 3 years ago was an Astra G for £750, it's been faultless requiring nothing doing, even for its mot's.


Have you ever bought a lottery ticket?


----------



## BrianEvesham (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> Have you ever bought a lottery ticket?


In the past yes, but not for many years now!


----------



## Dogtrousers (27 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Leaving aside the only kidding, I thought that SRAM and Shimano are compatible.


If so then it gives me an upgrade option sometime in the future. For now, it works fine so I'm not touching it. And the next car I get is going to have the most amazing wing mirrors ever.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Apr 2014)

screenman said:


> No that means you do not have as much money as you would like. Maybe you had a crap BMW rather than BMW are crap.



Wrong.


----------



## benb (16 May 2014)

bonker said:


> Manoeuvring between two lanes of traffic, the left lane stopped just as I was checking behind so I didn't realise in time. I clipped a stopped car's wing mirror knocking it off. The impact threw me into the road, ouch.
> 
> It was only my second time out on my new Pearson , Now You See Me, which now has a scratched Brooks saddle and leather handlebar tape, and brake hood, ouch.
> 
> ...



Only just seen this. You should, if it's not too late, check whether you are covered by your home insurance. Many policies have a public liability cover thrown in which should cover for this sort of thing.

Hope you're OK. 

I live in Epsom, so I'll keep an eye out and wave at you if I see you.


----------



## confusedcyclist (30 Mar 2015)

I've hit an ambulance wing mirror before while avoiding a pot hole, lost my balance then clunk! It was my shoulder, it hurt but no bruise.

I shouted sorry, the driver just chuckled and nodded "it's fine" and I was on my way. Learnt my lesson though!


----------



## Cyclist33 (1 Apr 2015)

[QUOTE 3045433, member: 259"]Could have been much worse financially, but I presume you didn't get hurt. I wonder if this will set off a personal liability insurance thread?

To start things off, I have it, and I've had to use it. [/QUOTE]

I had it on my old home insurance policy, nothing to do with cycling or not, and have had to use it when I broke someone's car with my bike.


----------



## Cyclist33 (1 Apr 2015)

bonker said:


> Manoeuvring between two lanes of traffic, the left lane stopped just as I was checking behind so I didn't realise in time. I clipped a stopped car's wing mirror knocking it off. The impact threw me into the road, ouch.
> 
> It was only my second time out on my new Pearson , Now You See Me, which now has a scratched Brooks saddle and leather handlebar tape, and brake hood, ouch.
> 
> ...



Call Cycle Touring Club - I'm sure they're lawyers could not only get you off, but also take the old lady's savings and pension for the rest of her life, as well as getting her a minimum 16 years in jail for dangerous driving and attempted murder.


----------



## midlife (1 Apr 2015)

Better still, get Massingbird on the he case 

*Blackadder*: I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List. And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket


----------



## S.Giles (5 Apr 2015)

A couple of years ago, I went out for a bike ride in a public place and my _head_ was badly damaged by a negligent driver. Their insurer has claimed that I share 25% liability because I was not wearing a helmet, and so there was contributory negligence on my part.

So, damage to an unprotected (expensive) rear view mirror is the sole responsibility of the person causing the damage, but damage to a person's unprotected head isn't!

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a large (moral, and possibly legal) grey area in this argument. If someone parks their museum-grade vintage Ferrari where I may _accidentally_ damage it, has not my financial well-being been jeopardised to some degree by that person? Is it reasonable to compel me to take on that risk as I walk (or ride) past it? There aren't easy answers to this sort of question, hence the deadlock of the last eleven pages!


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (5 Apr 2015)

vickster said:


> British Cycling Ride membership gives you 3rd party liability, £32 for a year (and legal cover if you get knocked off, Halfords & Wiggle discount etc)
> 
> GWS lovely Pearson bike  and hip





Tyke said:


> +1 for BC it`s worth it for the peace of mind, your covered if you need it and can save more than it costs with the discounts



'Ditto'

British Cycling 'Silver' membership here too

I'll admit to _preaching_ slightly, at work too
I work in a fairly busy Hospital, & when I see cyclists brought in, after a RTCs/falls, after the initial enquiries about how the bike is, I'll ask about insurance

If in the negative, I'll explain the benefits of CTC/BC membership, & from both sides of the fence; as the 'IP', & the 'OP' 


Digressing slightly (sorry!)
Still get the odd stroppy sod on a 'bso', who wants to sue the driver who knocked them off, broke their leg, flattened the bike
Despite; no light, no reflectors, wearing a hood up, pedalling through a red-light... on the phone

They simply won't believe that the most desperate 'no win, no fee, no self-respect, ambulance chasing lawyer' won't get them a penny - not until the Police officer who comes to interview them, lays it on the line, that the motorist wants money from them


----------



## Steve Saunders (23 Apr 2015)

Around September I got overtaken, badly, by a mini just before a junction (10-20yards). I was indicating left, they were turning left - as it turns out - (without indicating). I had to stop as they cut me up without warning. I was a bit annoyed so I sped up to catch up with them in the hope of asking them what they were playing at. Just as I was getting close to catching their slipstream and doing the same speed as them 25mph they inexplicably stopped for a car coming the other way despite the parked cars being on the other side of the road - i.e. our side had priority. My breaking distance would have been fine, but I rode over a patch of diesel and the back wheel locked up instantly. Released the brakes hoping to squeeze past ... but was thwarted by a raised seam in the road from when the council had repaired it - this threw my balance out. Had no option left, and it was slow motion ... until, thud ... as I smacked into the back corner of the car and got spat out into the road. Thankfully I wasn't over the bars and it just took me down sideways on the non-drive side, but it still twisted the shifter round the bars and fractured a bone in my finger - that took months to heal properly.

What made it worse was the driver of the mini was pretty fit - oops.

No damage to the car, I just bounced off thankfully. Felt a right tit.


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Apr 2015)

A right tit or her right tit?


----------



## benb (24 Apr 2015)

Steve Saunders said:


> ... thud ... as I smacked into the back corner of the car and got spat out into the road. ...
> What made it worse was the driver of the mini was pretty fit - oops.



Some people will do anything to get a phone number.


----------

