accident advise.

[Origamist]

Good last min swerve, Daniel - luckily the dropped kerb was perfectly positioned for that escape. Glad to see you were able to walk away from the incident.

Traffic proceeding in the cyclist's direction has priority - as such the van should have waited as he had a clear sight of the approaching cyclist. The other drivers were negligent for following. However, when the van went through the cyclist would have struggled to see what was following and will have learnt a lesson i.e that proceeding cyclists with priority in these scenarios tend to be treated with less respect for the law than other bigger and heavier road users. When dealing with two way, single-lane pinch-points like that you have to be ready for the "follow my leader" phenomenon when negotiating traffic calming measures and approach with reduced speed and caution.

 

[sabian92]

No matter who was right or wrong - why did you try and blast through the pinch point at that speed with a van there in the first place? They're designed for 1 vehicle only at a time, and you tried to squeeze down the side of the van. I'd put you in the wrong there, not the car driver.

 

[Origamist]

No matter who was right or wrong.. I'd put you in the wrong there, not the car driver.

LOL

 

[sabian92]

LOL

You're laughing but no matter who is allowed through at a given time, if it's blocked you have to wait. Being on a bike doesn't mean you can just dart through little gaps - the fact the rider could have stopped, but didn't meant they had to do a quick left on to the pavement because of the van coming towards them means that it was an unsafe thing to do.

Sorry, but i stand by what I say. If it was a car doing the same thing you'd blame the car driver trying to squeeze through, wouldn't you?

 

[lulubel]

I kind of agree with sabian92. The van driver should have waited, but he didn't because his vehicle was bigger than yours. Drivers do that. The cars followed the van through because car drivers behave like sheep. It isn't intent - it's just mindlessness, and not looking past the back end of the vehicle in front. That's normal, and you should expect it.

Yes, they should all have waited, but they weren't the ones who got hurt by barging through the gap. You could have waited for them to get out of the way and, in the interests of self-preservation, it would have been the sensible thing to do.

 

[Globalti]

Why were you so far out from the pavement? You could have squeezed through there.

It looks to me as if you were trying to give the leading van driver a scare and it went wrong.

Defensive driving or riding means never taking anything for granted.

 

[Alien8]

Don't bother the police with this non-event. If you can get something out of the motorist then consider yourself fortunate. Looks very 50-50 to me and no obvious attempt at self preservation from you. Good luck with this one.

 

[Origamist]

You're laughing but no matter who is allowed through at a given time, if it's blocked you have to wait. Being on a bike doesn't mean you can just dart through little gaps - the fact the rider could have stopped, but didn't meant they had to do a quick left on to the pavement because of the van coming towards them means that it was an unsafe thing to do.

Sorry, but i stand by what I say. If it was a car doing the same thing you'd blame the car driver trying to squeeze through, wouldn't you?

You've got the wrong end of the stick - I was laughing at your comments because you opened with "No matter who was right or wrong" (i.e it's not about who's right or wrong) you then conclude with "I'd put you in the wrong there, not the car driver".

A driver in the same position as a cyclist in the clip would have had to slam on their brakes as he would, almost certainly, not have gone for the gap due to the size of his vehicle. In the situation you describe the van driver would still be at fault for failing to give way as would the following vehicles.

 

[Origamist]

Don't bother the police with this non-event. If you can get something out of the motorist then consider yourself fortunate. Looks very 50-50 to me and no obvious attempt at self preservation from you. Good luck with this one.

Apart from the last second swerve onto the pavement!

 

[Hip Priest]

I'd agree that the car and van driver were in the wrong but ultimately it was an avoidable accident. It's not worth risking your neck to make a point. The bloke was reasonably polite, but I don't like all this insurance-speak like 'I'm not accepting responsiblity'. If it was me I'd have apologised, offered to pay for repairs and given a lift home if required.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You put yourself in deliberate risk. It was a very foolish move on your part. Priority does not give you safety on the roads.

 

[TVC]

The Police simply won't be interested in this, you put yourself into a dangerous position. If the car driver couldn't see you behind the box van, then you also couldn't see him but pressed on without assessing if it was clear to continue.

Put this one down to experience.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Hello.

Just stumbled upon this forum seeking advise on what to regarding an incident I had a couple of nights ago.

Where do I stand with insurance claim against this guy or should I report to police?

youtube link here.


came away a little bruise and a few parts on bike are scratched.

From the video you will see i was inches away of going over his bonnet.

Great to see you are deleting comments that say you were to blame! That shows how much you have learned.

 

[Origamist]

Great to see you are deleting comments that say you were to blame! That shows how much you have learned.

Although, I see he has retained your worst case scenario comment about a "dangerous cycling" charge - maybe he's doing that to make you look silly?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I see he has retained your worst case scenario comment about being charged with "dangerous cycling" - maybe he's doing that to make you look silly?

I know that that charge doesn't exist but it was just to highlight how big a muppet he is.