# "The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeNnfb7UnUU


----------



## ianrauk (12 Jan 2015)

What a twit cyclist. You could see from a long way back the hazard that the car was moving out of the junction, so should have cycled accordingly. But no. he had to make a point. Throwing his bike on the ground.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

The cyclists din't collide with anything and the cyclists didn't try to lie his way out of it. The driver's excuse was "I wasn't looking your way!"


----------



## DCLane (12 Jan 2015)

Looking at it the rider is more at fault than the driver. Unfortunately the driver's probably now hating all cyclists as a result.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jan 2015)

DCLane said:


> Looking at it the rider is more at fault than the driver.



Really? Whatever you think the cyclist might have done to mitigate the situation, the_ fault_ lies squarely with the driver.



> Unfortunately the driver's probably now hating all cyclists as a result.



I don't care what he thinks, unless it's thinking twice about pulling out without checking it's clear.

GC


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (12 Jan 2015)

If I cycled that badly I wouldn't put the footage on Youtube. As for throwing your bike on the ground, words fail me.


----------



## benb (12 Jan 2015)

DCLane said:


> Looking at it the rider is more at fault than the driver. Unfortunately the driver's probably now hating all cyclists as a result.



How do you work that out? The driver pulled out from a side road without having properly checked it was clear.
I would agree that the cyclist could have avoided it, but it was the driver's fault 100%.

[QUOTE 3472039, member: 9609"]my sympathies are with the driver on this one - if you are going to filter in heavy traffic you need to be 100% switched on, and in this case the cyclist didn't spot the obvious.[/QUOTE]

So the driver doesn't have responsibility to check that the road they are pulling into is clear? What an odd idea.


----------



## Oldbloke (12 Jan 2015)

ianrauk said:


> What a twit cyclist. You could see from a long way back the hazard that the car was moving out of the junction, so should have cycled accordingly. But no. he had to make a point. Throwing his bike on the ground.



+1


----------



## mythste (12 Jan 2015)

Man, that sucks. Easily avoided by both parties. Fact of the matter is, Cyclist appeared to make a conscious effort not to avoid it.


----------



## DCLane (12 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> How do you work that out? The driver pulled out from a side road without having properly checked it was clear..


 
I stated "more than"; the driver is at fault, yes. But so is the rider; they're moving at speed on the outside of traffic, saw the car moving and yet didn't anticipate. Then threw their bike down in protest like a spoilt child.


----------



## roadrash (12 Jan 2015)

There are nobs in all walks of life, ........that video contains two.......... driver and cyclist.


----------



## benb (12 Jan 2015)

DCLane said:


> I stated "more than"; the driver is at fault, yes. But so is the rider; they're moving at speed on the outside of traffic, saw the car moving and yet didn't anticipate. Then threw their bike down in protest.



I agree they could have avoided it, but to state the cyclist was more at fault than the driver, when it is 100% the responsibility of someone entering a road from a side road to check that it is clear before they do so?

I agree, the throwing the bike down was silly and unnecessary.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> when it is 100% the responsibility of someone entering a road from a side road to check that it is clear before they do so?.



It is 100 percent the responsibility of the cyclist to avoid obstructions.

He didn't, he deliberately cycled into the car, so desperate was he to create a cyclecam incident for YouTube.


----------



## derrick (12 Jan 2015)

It could so easily have been avoided, The cyclist was riding like an idiot, the driver not paying attention, but the cyclist had right of way, that still does not excuse him, a pair of nobbers


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

Crash for cash cyclist?


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Jan 2015)

vickster said:


> Crash for cash cyclist?



I thought that, looks to me as if he saw an opportunity to go down soft and put a claim in.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

vickster said:


> Crash for cash cyclist?



The fact the insurance company saw the footage and paid out suggests it's not a scam. How many cash for crash bod's film their stunt?


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Jan 2015)

It's the driver's fault for pulling into the cyclist's path, but it's always worth taking extra care when filtering to avoid a collision in these circumstances.

I've got no sound here so I can't comment on the ensuing discussion.


----------



## tyred (12 Jan 2015)

The car driver should have been paying better attention but the cyclist could so easily have avoided hitting him.

If you can avoid having a collision you should. Being right doesn't make it hurt any less.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Jan 2015)

User said:


> One small point when watching the video, is that the camera's viewpoint is a bit higher than the cyclist's eyeline. We get to see the car a little earlier than he would have.


 
Plus, when you're watching a video about a collision, you're expecting a collision. When you're cycling along in real time, you aren't. I always try to bear these things in mind when watching these videos.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The fact the insurance company saw the footage and paid out suggests it's not a scam. How many cash for crash bod's film their stunt?



Insurance companies are known to take a very pragmatic view with small claims.


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The fact the insurance company saw the footage and paid out suggests it's not a scam. How many cash for crash bod's film their stunt?


I wasn't being entirely serious!  I can't see why any cyclist would not try to avoid an accident...from my own experience, it mostly hurts!


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Crash or collision. A driver who hits someone who is stationary and YELLING a warning because the driver is looking the other way cannot possibly claim it was an "accident".


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 Jan 2015)

Had the same impression - it could have been avoided. Insurance companies also pay out if the compensation is low and to avoid further operational cost. The driver's fib probably aided the decision.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

The idea that insurance companies simply pay up to avoid hassle is a made-up tale from la la land. Until the footage was shown the insurance company would have paid precisely zero, because it would have been he said/he said.


----------



## numbnuts (12 Jan 2015)

“baby throws toys out of pram”


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Someone in charge of a ton of metal doesn't look and drives into someone, and the victim gets cross! Unfriggingbelievable.


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Crash or collision. A driver who hits someone who is stationary and YELLING a warning because the driver is looking the other way cannot possibly claim it was an "accident".


In my opinion (which you'll likely disagree with, like pretty much everything), an accident is a collision, crash or incident (or whatever the preferred term is) that occurs where there was no intent on the part of either party (I'm giving the cyclist the benefit of the doubt here)


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

So you'd call someone killed by a drunk driver the victim of an accident?


----------



## mick1836 (12 Jan 2015)

This was obviously a cyclist LOOKING for an accident to claim cash  Prior to the accident with all the weaving around vehicles I'm surprised he wasn't knocked off sooner NOT a very good ambassador for cycling?


----------



## jonny jeez (12 Jan 2015)

Bad cycling, bad driving, bad attitudes on both parties behalf...but worst of all bad idea to post this on YouTube.

Nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## Markymark (12 Jan 2015)

Better road awareness of the cyclist and defensive cycling would have helped avoid that collision

Driver is still 100% at fault. 

I would advise certain strategies to my kids to not be mugged. Still 100% muggers fault if they are though.


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> So you'd call someone killed by a drunk driver the victim of an accident?


No because that driver should not have been in the car in the first place (it is illegal for a reason) BUT even drunk drivers don't usually drive with the intent of killing someone

What does the HC say about filtering on a bicyle? I am sure there's something about exercising caution, considering the road conditions or similar...


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2015)

DCLane said:


> Looking at it the rider is more at fault than the driver. Unfortunately the driver's probably now hating all cyclists as a result.


 
This is a perplexing statement. The driver continued to pull out of a junction (without ensuring it was safe to do so) into the path of another road user who had priority. Was the cyclist wise to keep moving - that is debatable, but with hindsight the answer is clearly "no". However, it is evident that the cyclist scrubbed off speed before the minor shunt. I would hazard that he was working on the unreliable assumption that the driver had seen him and he could continue ahead slowly. It seems obvious now that the driver was looking left, in the opposite direction, judging the speed of the approaching van to see if he could execute the right turn with "stationary" traffic to his right.

As for throwing your bike on the floor - that should be the preserve of pro time-trialists who puncture and are awaiting a support vehicle.


----------



## steveindenmark (12 Jan 2015)

I cant see the video clip......thankfully :ø)


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

If a drunk driver pleaded clemency on the grounds they had no intention Id treat their plea with the same regard as someone who threw a fire extinguisher at a crowd from ten floors up and claimed similar.


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> If a drunk driver pleaded clemency on the grounds they had no intention Id treat their plea with the same regard as someone who threw a fire extinguisher at a crowd from ten floors up and claimed similar.


Isn't the charge usually manslaughter rather than murder (or similar), due to the lack of prior intent? (IANAL obviously)


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Jan 2015)

vickster said:


> Isn't the charge usually manslaughter rather than murder (or similar), due to the lack of prior intent? (IANAL obviously)


 
Normally death by dangerous driving.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

It should be, that's what the drunk, texting Bishop has been charged with in Blatimore.


----------



## vickster (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It should be, that's what the drunk, texting Bishop has been charged with in Blatimore.


No idea what you are talking about. They have the death penalty in the US, thus I don't regard their justice system terribly highly on that basis


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jan 2015)

Don't quite follow the righteous indignation from some here. Watched it twice now, and the car did look stationary to me. To be honest didn't even seem to be a collision, or at worst a nudge - "cyclist had to apply brakes" maybe?
Regardless of "blame" insurance wise, it was pretty dozy cycling, and driver was creeping out pretty sensibly, and stopped. Quite why the cyclist chucked his bike on the floor, and why any resulting damage is the driver's fault I really don't get.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Don't quite follow the righteous indignation from some here. Watched it twice now, and the car did look stationary to me. To be honest didn't even seem to be a collision, or at worst a nudge - "cyclist had to apply brakes" maybe?
> Regardless of "blame" insurance wise, it was pretty dozy cycling, and driver was creeping out pretty sensibly, and stopped. Quite why the cyclist chucked his bike on the floor, and why any resulting damage is the driver's fault I really don't get.


 
The car was not stationary at the point of impact. Watch the video again, but only if you're really at a loose end.

The driver was not "creeping out pretty sensibly" - there was a cyclist in the lane he was moving into. Furthermore (and once again), the car had not stopped.


----------



## Profpointy (12 Jan 2015)

Origamist said:


> The car is not stationary at the point of impact. Watch the video again, but only if you're really at a loose end.
> 
> The driver was not "creeping out pretty sensibly" - there was a cyclist in the lane he was moving into. Furthermore, the car had not stopped.



half-walking pace maybe, if that's not "creeping out", I'm not sure what is


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

"It's not careless driving if I drive into someone slowly"


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2015)

Profpointy said:


> half-walking pace maybe, if that's not "creeping out", I'm not sure what is


 
It's the "pretty sensibly" bit that is the problem with your earlier statement.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

If prof pointy thinks it's sensible to enter a main road without flipping looking where you're going it's pretty scary.


----------



## benb (12 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3472274, member: 9609"]I agree with your first bit entirely, and technically the collision is the fault of the driver (that is why the insurance will have paid out) but a careful considerate cyclist would have easily avoided this, we all have to look out for each other on the road and we need to make allowances for other peoples mistakes - for me this cyclist was just hammering along with no thoughts in his head.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I said that the cyclist probably could have avoided it, but that doesn't excuse the driver in any way at all. I don't like the implication that the cyclist was to blame for the collision.

I know someone who left their back door open and got burgled.
Was it their fault they got burgled? Does the fact the door was open reduce the culpability of the burglar?


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

The driver was pulling out into the main road while thinking about punching kittens.


----------



## Origamist (12 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3472274, member: 9609"]I agree with your first bit entirely, and technically the collision is the fault of the driver (that is why the insurance will have paid out) but a careful considerate cyclist would have easily avoided this, we all have to look out for each other on the road and we need to make allowances for other peoples mistakes - for me this cyclist was just hammering along with no thoughts in his head.[/QUOTE]

It is clear that the cyclist had slowed significantly before the impact (i.e. he was not "hammering along"), otherwise he would have been bonnet surfing.

If you're going to try to make allowances for every driver who could potentially emerge from a junction you're simply going to have to stop every few hundred meters and hope you don't get hit from behind.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Yep, and then the driver who hits you from behind will blame you for slowing.


----------



## Drago (12 Jan 2015)

The cyclist was riding like a penis and then commits a S4.A POA offence against the car driver. I've little sympathy with someone who will fully puts themselves in a position where a car driver can do that to them.

What's the old adage? Ride as if every other road user is trying to kill you.

The car driver is at fault, but the collision could have so easily been avoided in the first place. Being alive and your bike undamaged is much better than being righteous but in hospital.


----------



## Turbo Rider (12 Jan 2015)

Driver doesn't seem to give way at all. Road looks a bit wet, so braking may have been affected for cyclist. Cyclist gets a bit lairy, but heads for the cars path rather than trying to avoid it. Cyclist stops before collision. Driver drives into him. Cyclist loses the plot more than he already has. Cyclist is technically correct, but a bit of a nob. Driver made a mistake and then lied, so is also a nob. Like attracts like, defined.


----------



## DWiggy (12 Jan 2015)

The cyclist could clearly see the car was posing a threat to him from a long way back and should have adjusted his speed/position accordingly, as for the damage to his bike it could have happened when he chucked it on the ground! and his behaviour was just appalling...calm the fook down!


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

It's lucky that drivers never express their displeasure at cyclists going slowly.


----------



## winjim (12 Jan 2015)

Interesting article regarding this type of situation.

http://thecyclingsolicitor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-legal-position-where-cyclist-is.html?m=1


----------



## Drago (12 Jan 2015)

To be fair, if the driver had been frightened by the verbal onslaught unleashed by the cyclist and driven off in fear, running over the bicycle as they did so, I'm not sure the cyclist would have any case against the driver, either criminal or civil.

Or even worse if the driver had twatted him and claimed he was frightened he was about the be assaulted and made a pre-emptive strike to prevent such an assault the cyclist would be stuffed.

Or worse still, if the driver were some Phil Mitchell type and just got out the car and kicked the sheet out of him he'd be in real bother.

I've seen all the scenarios played out above many times. Yawping off, no matter how angry or righteous they may feel, can so often escalate the situation and bring about an ending they hadn't anticipated.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

I'll pay fifty quid to the Bent Coppers Retired in Spain Fund if you can find a single example of a driver getting out of his car to assault a cyclist who was found not guilty. You've seen it "many, many times", one example will do.


----------



## Drago (12 Jan 2015)

Had one year before last, one of my last jobs before I moved to CID. The car driver was built like giant haystack, absolutely dwarfed me, and with one punch put the teeth down the cyclists throat, knocked him out and left him covered in abrasions where he hit the floor. The driver went guilty in court, but claimed the mitigation that he thought the cyclist was about to lump him and walked away with a Court issues caution. The cyclist was stretchers away needing hundreds in dental work.

When you've spent 18 years in roads policing, and 6 of those specialising in incidents involving cyclists you'll have seen plenty of road rage, and rarely does the person starting it walk away the victor in any sense of the word. I've seen guys put fists through car window glass and punch drivers in one fluid movement. Overseen drivers take baseball bats and knives to their antagonists. I dealt with one where the driver was shot.

Before getting into a confrontation just think Kenneth Noye. There is always someone out there more willing than you to use violence, less inhibited than you about the levels of violence they will use. Anyone who yawps off like the cyclist in the video is quite simply an idiot.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Verifiable report, obviously.


----------



## Hip Priest (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Verifiable report, obviously.


 
If you aren't going to accept the answer, then don't ask.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Haven't had an answer yet, just an implausible made-up story with zero details.

"I was so scared I was going to be assaulted I got out of the car!"


----------



## Mugshot (12 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> "I was so scared I was going to be assaulted I got out of the car!"



Who said that?


----------



## glenn forger (12 Jan 2015)

Drago said:


> Had one year before last, one of my last jobs before I moved to CID. The car driver was built like giant haystack, absolutely dwarfed me, and with one punch put the teeth down the cyclists throat, knocked him out and left him covered in abrasions where he hit the floor. The driver went guilty in court, but claimed the mitigation that he thought the cyclist was about to lump him and walked away with a Court issues caution. The cyclist was stretchers away needing hundreds in dental work.
> 
> .




So 2013? Where? What was their names?


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Jan 2015)

Sometimes it's avoiding the the situation by clever and aware cycling, but sometime it's just being bullied out of the way.


----------



## Globalti (13 Jan 2015)

Cyclist was riding too fast for the conditions and failed completely to spot the car coming out. He should also have anticpiated car movements at the junction and slowed down. He should also have realised that the driver's view may have been obscured by the cars that the cyclist was overtaking. He's a crap cyclist and a nasty aggressive one at that. Did he even hit the car? It's cyclists like that who are giving the rest of us a bad name.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (13 Jan 2015)

I'm surprised he got that far before he had an incident. I was convinced the collision was coming at 12 seconds in.


----------



## Archie_tect (13 Jan 2015)

Filtering through the space between stationary cars on the left with oncoming traffic approaching with a combined closing speed of 50+mph is lunacy. He should never have been in the situation where he was even close to the car emerging, it's not as if he couldn't see it well before and couldn't appreciate that it was trying to pull out.


----------



## Globalti (13 Jan 2015)

Unfortunately he's an example of the aggressive cyclist who rides around with a conceited sense of self-righteousness. It's almost as if they are daring other road users to cut them up; whether it's in the hope of scoring a good video for Youtube or even compensation, I don't know, but it's a dangerous game to play. As others have pointed out they can never be sure the other road user isn't going to deck them or whether their little stunt will work out in their favour and they will escape serious injury. I don't know what can be done about these idiots, they embarrass me as a cyclist.


----------



## NorvernRob (13 Jan 2015)

The cyclist is a complete d*ck. I don't want to hear 'it was the drivers fault' - he was slowly pulling out and obviously unsighted, if that had been me on the bike or anyone else with common sense I'd have seen the car and slowed/stopped long before riding into it.

'It wasn't my fault' isn't going to help when you're laid in hospital, you have to have some awareness and common sense and not ride around looking for other road users to make a mistake.

Youtube and GoPro have created a legion of road users just looking for confrontation. They get aggressive and shouty, safe in the knowledge it's unlikely they'll get a smack on camera.


----------



## Globalti (13 Jan 2015)

Just like all drivers, I occasionally make mistakes. I just hope I don't make a mistake and get into a barney with one of those road-warriors; if I do I will simply park my car then tell them to calm down, call the Police and show them the video.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

NorvernRob said:


> The cyclist is a complete d*ck. I don't want to hear 'it was the drivers fault' - he was slowly pulling out and obviously unsighteda.



Why do you think the driver's insurance company paid out?


----------



## BigonaBianchi (13 Jan 2015)

from what i see on th evideo the driver is 100% to blame for the collision. He pulled out without looking properly. I would have assumed the driver would have done this and taken evasive action, most drivers do this even though it is dangerous and poor driving. The cyclist was wearing hi vis. The driver was totally to blame.

How the cyclist then reacted after the accident was less than ideal tbh. I can understand his anger totally, and in the heat of the moment I'd forgive him his words. However it would have been better if he'd taken a few moments to calm down before confronting the driver. That said I think the rider was worried the driver would drive off, which he did at one point look like he would. The driver to his credit did stop and apologise and offer his contact details etc. I suspect he did this once he saw he was on cycle cam. 

Thankfully no serious injury, it could easily have been much worse. Hopefully the driver will be more bike aware from now on. I'd also encourage the rider to anticipate idiot driving like this better.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

What on earth was the driver going on about "just two minutes!" It's extremely likely, knowing as we do that the driver is a lying sack of shoot, that the driver was going to run away like a gutless coward.


----------



## Globalti (13 Jan 2015)

Drivers who take pride in the standard of their driving are encouraged to take IAM training and any conscientious driver will try to learn from their mistakes. Cyclists are legitimate road users, the same as powered vehicle drivers and horse riders, so a mature, intelligent cyclist will recognise that fact and ride accordingly while making massive allowances for his or her own vulnerability and the fact that human beings do make mistakes. This is the principle of motorcyclist training: assume nothing and treat all other road users as a potential hazard.


----------



## benb (13 Jan 2015)

IMO whether the cyclist could or should have avoided the incident is secondary to the fact that the driver pulled out without looking when they should have given way.

The driver is the one in the wrong, and I despair that some people are excusing his actions.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

Without the camera, the driver, who we know to be a liar, would have got away with it, which makes me think how many lying drivers like him get away with it when there are no cameras. I wonder if that driver has carried out other hit and runs.


----------



## NorvernRob (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Why do you think the driver's insurance company paid out?



Did you even read my post? Yes, the driver is to blame from an insurance point of view because he pulled out into the road. That's not in question.

However, do you really think the accident was unavoidable from the cyclists point of view? If you were riding that bike would you have shouted some obscenities, slowed down then ridden into the side of the car anyway?

Would you have hammered it past all that stationary traffic and across junctions where anyone coming out is clearly unsighted?

As I said before 'it was the drivers fault' isn't going to help you when your laid in hospital. All he had to do was not ride like a d*ck.


----------



## Origamist (13 Jan 2015)

Globalti said:


> Cyclist was riding too fast for the conditions and failed completely to spot the car coming out. .


 
He did not fail completely to spot the car - he is clearly braking and slowing before the minor impact.



Globalti said:


> He should also have anticpiated car movements at the junction and slowed down.


 
He did slow down, but not sufficiently to avoid a prang. However, I'd agree that he could have cycled more defensively on the lead up to the junction.



Globalti said:


> He should also have realised that the driver's view may have been obscured by the cars that the cyclist was overtaking.


 
Less likely - there are no high sided vehicles on the approach to the junction and the cyclist would have been visible if the driver checked before emerging.



Globalti said:


> He's a crap cyclist and a nasty aggressive one at that. Did he even hit the car? It's cyclists like that who are giving the rest of us a bad name.


 
It seems that the car hit the cyclist as it moved to the right to negotiate the turn. It's drivers like that who are giving the rest of us a bad name etc

The driver and cyclist could both have handled the situation better.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

Forgive me for not placing much weight on the words of someone who remains baffled by the difference between "your" and "you're". Nor one who lies about the incident, for that matter.


----------



## benb (13 Jan 2015)

I disagree that the cyclist was obscured.
The driver didn't look, and admitted that they were only looking the other way.


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Forgive me for not placing much weight on the words of someone who remains baffled by the difference between "your" and "you're". Nor one who lies about the incident, for that matter.


So you'd attend the scene of a collision where it was one person's word against another but would side with the person who used the best grammar?

Your () a pompous buffoon. I agree with your stance in this thread but it says something about a person who disregards a another's viewpoint for incorrect grammar.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jan 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> would side with the person who used the best grammar?



Better, not best.


GC


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> So you'd attend the scene of a collision where it was one person's word against another but would side with the person who used the best grammar?
> 
> r.




Nope. I'd side with the party who isn't a proven liar.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3474288, member: 45"]Got away with what? Causing the cyclist to damage his bike by throwing it on the floor?[/QUOTE]


"I think the cyclist is at fault cos he got cross when an inattentive driver drove a ton of metal into him while looking the other way"


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Nope. I'd side with the party who isn't a proven liar.


I get that part. However, you also dismissed someone for their grammar. Elitism.


----------



## winjim (13 Jan 2015)

I see no proof that the driver is a liar.


----------



## MisterStan (13 Jan 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I get that part. However, you also dismissed someone for their grammar. Elitism twattism - .



far too much of it (people being singled out for poor spelling/grammar) on the site at the moment.


----------



## Globalti (13 Jan 2015)

Emerging from a side road through a line of stationary cars is just about the most dangerous thing a driver can do so everybody needs to keep their wits about them in that situation. Crap roadcraft by both parties.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3474448, member: 45"]That's not an answer to my question.[/QUOTE]

I can understand why the cyclist threw his bike on the floor. You're in fight or flight mode and amazed that someone could be so reckless and stupid. It's like shooting someone then reporting them to the police for saying Bad Words.


----------



## NorvernRob (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Forgive me for not placing much weight on the words of someone who remains baffled by the difference between "your" and "you're". Nor one who lies about the incident, for that matter.



I'm not baffled in the slightest, I was going out and didn't spot that I'd put "when your laid in hospital" instead of "when you're laid in hospital'.

You're - short for 'you are', ironically it's one of my pet hates when people use them wrongly.

Regardless of which, it doesn't make the cyclist, nor any that ride like him, any less of a d*ckhead. A pompous, up himself spoilt child who damages his own bike by throwing it on the floor.

Watch the video again and tell me in the same circumstances you'd have been hit by the car. I would have avoided it very easily, the same way I've avoided every car that's ever pulled out on me, both on the bike and in 15 years of driving.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

You 


winjim said:


> I see no proof that the driver is a liar.



Look at the title of the thread, the driver lied to his insurer and denied he was moving when he hit the stationary cyclist. The driver is a liar.


----------



## winjim (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You
> 
> 
> Look at the title of the thread, the driver lied to his insurer and denied he was moving when he hit the stationary cyclist. The driver is a liar.


There is no proof that the driver deliberately lied. He may have been mistaken. I would expect his recollection of events to be imperfect and the cyclist's account (which is all we have to go on) to be biased. 

I'm also not convinced the cyclist was stationary at the moment of impact.


----------



## DWiggy (13 Jan 2015)

TBH after the barrage of abuse the cyclist gave the drive its no wonder his recollection of evens were not been 100%


----------



## mustang1 (13 Jan 2015)

Its the drivers fault for pulling out from a side road into a main road. But its the cyclists fault for causing the accident. 

To my mind the drivers mentality was:
Nothing coming, let's cautiously pull out further. 
And the cyclists mentality was:
Junction approaching, I have right of way, no need to slow down.


----------



## Mugshot (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> "I think the cyclist is at fault cos he got cross when an inattentive driver drove a ton of metal into him while looking the other way"


Who said that? Oh and you haven't answered post #74 yet either.


----------



## benb (13 Jan 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Its the drivers fault for pulling out from a side road into a main road. But its the cyclists fault for causing the accident.



The cyclist didn't cause the accident, the driver did, by pulling out without looking properly.
The cyclist could have avoided it, but they didn't cause it.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3474557, member: 45"]That still doesn't answer my question. I asked you what you thought the driver would have got away with.

[/QUOTE]

Coughing up the money his insurer paid when they realised the driver was at fault. The driver said he wasn't at fault, his insurer disagreed.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You
> 
> 
> Look at the title of the thread, the driver lied to his insurer and denied he was moving when he hit the stationary cyclist. The driver is a liar.



To be fair, it didn't look like that to me, not beyond a fair bit of doubt at any rate.
And the cyclists behaviour is seriously bizarre it must be said.


----------



## Dragonwight (13 Jan 2015)

Handbags at dawn it would seem, the guy got his money so why post it on YouTube unless he is attention seeking.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2015)

that cyclist is a twonk!


----------



## vickster (13 Jan 2015)

Dragonwight said:


> Handbags at dawn it would seem, the guy got his money so why post it on YouTube unless he is attention seeking.


Nail on head...likes the hystrionics it seems!


----------



## MrPie (13 Jan 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> that cyclist is a twonk!


I think the techncal term is 'nobber'


----------



## dodgy (13 Jan 2015)

Surprised at how few comments have appeared under the video on Youtube.


----------



## tyred (13 Jan 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> that cyclist is a twonk!



Entire incident summed up in one easy sentence. I like economy of words


----------



## winjim (13 Jan 2015)

The cyclist has anger issues. Imagine him in a car...


----------



## shouldbeinbed (13 Jan 2015)

A bike being ridden too fast for either the riders reactions or the mechanical ability of the bike and road to stop in time to avoid a collision. Shows poor judgement by the rider even before the toys fly out of the pram.

How different and more unanimously condemning of such action would the comments on here be if it was a reckless driver/motorcyclist approaching at speed towards a cyclist crossing a line of traffic and not being capable of stopping their vehicle in time, then hurling dog's abuse at the rider?

Driver at fault for pulling into a line of otherwise stationary traffic without adequately checking both ways, ok I'll have that, but with one element moving inappropriately fast for the conditions or his abilities, I think the driver can justifiably feel hard done by that his insurance company rolled over so easily (I imagine repeatedly saying sorry & I didn't see you, nailed it on for him)

just idly googling the Highway Code to see if there is something specific in there that would prompt a fast 100% culpability from the insurers, muddies the water even more for me.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/overview (noting the advice is given to drivers, riders and cyclists) including : https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158 - more of this is relevant to the poor riding and obnoxious attitude of the cyclist (e.g 146, 147 & part of 151) with the odd reference applicable to the driver in the vid (another part of 151)

and for good measure: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 (particularly with hot link from rule 67 to : https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169 (particularly 167).

Whats done is done and on balance of interpretation of legality over common sense, the right result arrived at, but I'd be ashamed to publicise myself behaving like that and hope I never have to deal with such a hissy drama queen if I'm in the car. His bike deserves a better owner.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Jan 2015)

Globalti said:


> Emerging from a side road through a line of stationary cars is just about the most dangerous thing a driver can do so everybody needs to keep their wits about them in that situation..



Oh, I can think of a multitude of worse things.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Jan 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Its the drivers fault for pulling out from a side road into a main road. But its the cyclists fault for causing the accident.
> .



Are you for real


----------



## mustang1 (13 Jan 2015)

400bhp said:


> Are you for real


It's quite funny the way I put that isn't it?  very politician-like. 

Well I don't understand why the cyclist didn't slow down at a junction.

Some years ago I witnessed a collision. In the left lane was a taxi driver and in the right lane, half car length ahead was a van. The van had to get in the left lane and the taxi driver didn't want the van to get in front. The van had it's left indicator on and was nudging closer to the taxi but the taxi driver was having none of it. Eventually the two vehicles made contact. The van driver was wrong but the taxi driver could have avoided it. In the end they both lost out.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Jan 2015)

mustang1 said:


> It's quite funny the way I put that isn't it?  very politician-like.
> 
> Well I don't understand why the cyclist didn't slow down at a junction.



He did slow down. Watch the video again. @Origamist has it spot on.


----------



## mustang1 (13 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> The cyclist didn't cause the accident, the driver did, by pulling out without looking properly.
> The cyclist could have avoided it, but they didn't cause it.


Im just gonna develop this a bit more so bare with me....
Suppose there are two airplanes, 10 miles apart, travelling at x knots, and in parallel in the same direction. The plane on the left then turns right slightly thus making a collision path with the other air plane. The plane that has changed direction has a radar that's not working. The plane that continues going straight has a fully functioning radar and can see it is on a collision course. The pilot has 5 minutes to change his course to avert a collision. But he doesn't want to and thinks "why the heck should I change course, its not my fault the other pilot changed direction". In addition, due to some air plane rules, the pilot going straight has the right of way. 

In 5 minutes from now, they crash. An investigation follows. What would the conclusion be?


----------



## Booyaa (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Nope. I'd side with the party who isn't a proven liar.


Just for some semblance of balance. Where is the "verifiable report" you seem so keen to get from others that the driver lied? You mentioned this thread title as proof in an earlier post, not exactly great proof really is it?

Glad it all ended well for the cyclist, hopefully when he reaches adulthood he will grow out of having a strop in the middle of the road and the driver will learn how to drive properly and safely.


----------



## ChrisV (13 Jan 2015)

I'm not too sure about this due to inexperience on a bike.

However ... the driver checked, the road was clear, then an overtaking (is filtering a cycling term for what is technically overtaking?) bike going too fast collided with him. No?

If he had edged out and an overtaking car had hit him, is it still his fault?


----------



## ChrisV (13 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3475340, member: 45"]Rule 167 of the Highway Code: ‘Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road’.[/QUOTE]

So the cyclist was in the wrong?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jan 2015)

The problem here is that the driver blatantly lied and that makes his defence invalid

i regularly use this dishonesty

If you get bad driving, report t to the Company, let the driver lie to their back teeth, then provide the video evidence 

Works wonders as most managers find the fact that they are put in a difficult situation by their employee's dishonesty


A classic was a left hook at a junction

The driver stated that I had been "all over the road, had no lights and then tried to turn right without looking"

The reply showed two videos......

Clearly demonstrated a straight riding line, the van illuminated by red lights at the rear and the front lights showing the van's livery as it cut straight across my front wheel

The reply was an abject apology, and tha fact that the driver would no longer be employed bythe company - Result


----------



## HLaB (13 Jan 2015)

The driver got it wrong, the cyclist is a plonk, end of!


----------



## confusedcyclist (13 Jan 2015)

The behaviour of this cyclist was appalling, I've been known to lose it when a driver does something stupid like this, but you could see it coming a hundred yards off, if they're past the line I just let them get on with it.


----------



## Lemond (13 Jan 2015)

How was the driver supposed to see the cyclist overtaking the car that had stopped. He can't be expected to look in two directions at once, can he? To me the cyclist was equally responsible. Too fast, too reckless.


----------



## Lemond (13 Jan 2015)

User said:


> Left, right, left again.



Glad you agree.


----------



## Lemond (14 Jan 2015)

User said:


> I don't think I do but, if imagining I do does it for you, carry on.



You said it yourself: if the driver's looking left, he can't possibly be looking right at the same time!


----------



## Origamist (14 Jan 2015)

Lemond said:


> You said it yourself: if the driver's looking left, he can't possibly be looking right at the same time!



I would not expect anyone to look left and right simultaneously when pulling out of a junction, but the driver, by his own admission, did not check it was clear to his right before proceeding!


----------



## Globalti (14 Jan 2015)

The cyclist was an idiot; he saw the emerging car in plenty of time and if he had had an ounce of commone sense and humility he would have stopped and allowed the driver to come out. Instead he thought it would be fun to try out his new helmet cam and punish the driver. 

The funny thing is that many many years ago when I was unemployed, poor, angry and resentful, I probably would have done the same thing if I'd been able to afford a bicycle and a helmet camera. I hated everybody.


----------



## Lemond (14 Jan 2015)

Anyone that approaches a junction at that speed and from behind a line of stationery cars is just asking for trouble. He should take some responsibility for his own foolish attitude.


----------



## benb (14 Jan 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Im just gonna develop this a bit more so bare with me....
> Suppose there are two airplanes, 10 miles apart, travelling at x knots, and in parallel in the same direction. The plane on the left then turns right slightly thus making a collision path with the other air plane. The plane that has changed direction has a radar that's not working. The plane that continues going straight has a fully functioning radar and can see it is on a collision course. The pilot has 5 minutes to change his course to avert a collision. But he doesn't want to and thinks "why the heck should I change course, its not my fault the other pilot changed direction". In addition, due to some air plane rules, the pilot going straight has the right of way.
> 
> In 5 minutes from now, they crash. An investigation follows. What would the conclusion be?



That analogy doesn't stand up, as it wasn't a technical fault that caused the driver to pull out without checking, and the cyclist did take some avoiding action (a little late, granted).
A better one is that pilot A has been cleared all the way to a runway, but an unobservant pilot B in another plane, not bothering to check their flight plan or radar, changes onto an intercept course. The pilot A reacts too late to avoid the crash that pilot B caused.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Drivers who move their vehicles into a space they haven't checked kill people:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-27037766

That driver was reversing without looking and killed a child. This idiot proven liar driver was driving FORWARDS and not bothering to look at the space he was driving into.


----------



## Arrowfoot (14 Jan 2015)

The lie is not as material in this case. It was avoidable. I am sure many of us would have avoided an incident of this nature because the way we ride, anitcipate possibilities and keeping a proper lookout. The moment he saw the gap between the cars, he should have realised that courtesy is being practised to allow those in sidelanes to come out. This is an attemtion seeking chap with a misplaced sense of right of way in comparison to his own life. 

I don't see much damage and Insurance conpanies like all businesses will "write-off" things of little value and being a nuisance / noise. They also found the perfect excuse of using the motorist lie to lump on him.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jan 2015)

It's been stated that the insurance paid out. It's hard to imagine what, if any, damage the cyclist was being compensated for. He clearly didn't fall off, but saw fit to sling his bike down the road - presumably causing it more damage than the (non?-) collision


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

You think driving without looking is harmless? Or do you think insurance companies pay out when no harm is caused by a lying driver who doesn't look where he's going?


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You think driving without looking is harmless? Or do you think insurance companies pay out when no harm is caused by a lying driver who doesn't look where he's going?



have you watched the video?


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

The video's been updated. Neither the police nor the lying driver's insurer attached any blame to the cyclist.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The video's been updated. Neither the police nor the lying driver's insurer attached any blame to the cyclist.



so what do you think the cyclist claimed for; hurt feelings?


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

What you asking me for? Ask him, and go to the cops while you're at it and explain why you think they're wrong and you're right.


----------



## dodgy (14 Jan 2015)

Why are you so angry, Glenn?


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Look at the video, almost everything you've just claimed is entirely incorrect. If you disagree then lobby parliament to change the law. Why continue arguing when the claim's settled and the cops confirm the driver is the party at fault? It's like arguing gravy causes freckles.


----------



## Profpointy (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Look at the video, almost everything you've just claimed is entirely incorrect. If you disagree then lobby parliament to change the law. Why continue arguing when the claim's settled and the cops confirm the driver is the party at fault? It's like arguing gravy causes freckles.



would you / do you ride like that yourself?


----------



## benb (14 Jan 2015)

I'm very impressed with the level of psychic ability demonstrated by some of the posters here.
You should do a tour.


----------



## Scoosh (14 Jan 2015)

*MOD NOTE
*
Circles - going round - time to Close.

We hope you have enjoyed this discussion  and don't take the next one to 11 pages !


----------

