Colleague just rear ended on his E-Bike :(

[deptfordmarmoset]

As an aside, I have devised a training run for myself which involves a 800ft of climbing up a cat 4 hill, and then a descent down a cat3 one. I rode it yesterday evening in rush hour traffic and I was clocking about 45 in a 50 limit with solid double white lines on the downhill. I had about a dozen cars crossing these solid lines whilst I was doing that speed as they were desperate to overtake me to join the line of cars in front doing a similar speed to me. There are plenty of instances I can recount of cars doing stupid things, but these overtakes ont he downhill were all willful and deliberate stupidity...the rear ending guy caught my colleague this morning also displayed bad judgement...

It's an immutable law of the universe that cars are faster than bikes, therefore the bike in front must be overtaken - regardless of safety or any mere man-made earthly law - if you don't want to upset the entire world order.

 

[Linford]

A sun visor in a car is of little help when the sun is below the bottom of the visor.
I'm afraid it does look as if you are trolling Linf.
A driver runs into the back of a cyclist on a straight road and you place blame on the cyclist?
. There might have been just a smidgin of an excuse if the driver had been blinded temporarlily on rounding a bend, but on a straght road?
I hope you are showing the contents of this thread to the victim.

Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?

Let me spell it out 'IF YOU RUN INTO THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR FAULT'' This is generally accepted in a court of law.

Also in the mix is that we all have a duty of care to ourselves which really is more relevant that when you are on 2 wheels, We are much more vulnerable when connecting with other vehicles.We will end up nursing the injuries, not the car drivers.

 

[Linford]

It's an immutable law of the universe that cars are faster than bikes, therefore the bike in front must be overtaken - regardless of safety or any mere man-made earthly law - if you don't want to upset the entire world order.

Believe me I was cursing them when they came past. they don't just put themselves in danger, they also do that to me, and the vehicles coming up the hill i the other direction. It's not like they were shooting past as I was near the limit anyway.

 

[akb]

Apparently it was a youngish driver in a focus

Wasn't me.

 

[Booyaa]

Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?

Let me spell it out 'IF YOU RUN INTO THE BACK OF ANOTHER VEHICLE, IT IS YOUR FAULT'' This is generally accepted in a court of law.

Also in the mix is that we all have a duty of care to ourselves which really is more relevant that when you are on 2 wheels, We are much more vulnerable when connecting with other vehicles.We will end up nursing the injuries, not the car drivers.

I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH

 

[snorri]

Did you not read my previous post on apportioning and the driver accepting blame ?.

I missed that first time around, sun was in my eyes m'lud, did you print it in hi-viz?

 

[hopless500]

It's that time of year where it is hard to see clearly in some situations when driving due to the sun being so low - but you have to drive accordingly. There's a bit where I can normally see no problem on a junction, and can pull out - but at the moment I have to stop and get my hand up to block the sun so I can see properly and check if anything's coming. Wouldn't dream of just pulling out and hoping...
Equally, as it's that time of year, I've now got my lights on the bike constantly, and on grey days, or dawn/dusk, I have them on low strobe for visibility.

 

[Spinney]

I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH

What happened? Just out of curiosity.
Linf's statement is true in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Noodley]

Nobody mentioned sunglasses yet?

 

[Linford]

I ran into the back of a guy in a car (we were both in cars), and he was at fault, the insurance companies and courts agreed. So your statement is not always true. HTH

I said 'it is generally accepted', not set in stone. What were the circumstances of yours ?

I''m not blaming my colleage as in the eyes of the law, they are on his side. I do however think that when you are going to always be worse for it.....being right in the eyes of the law isn't always doing right by oneself.
I ride in bright colours and always with lights when on motorcycle or high viz when on horseback as well FWIW

I actually also ride day and night on my cycle with lights on either strobe, or main

 

[Linford]

Nobody mentioned sunglasses yet?

They would make things worse as the dark bits get darker when using them

 

[Booyaa]

What happened? Just out of curiosity.
Linf's statement is true in the vast majority of cases.

In short, we were pulling out of a petrol station and he stalled and I bumped into him. There was no damage so we swapped details, couple of weeks later I got a bill through for a few grand to repair his car, which was worth about £500, at that point I got the insurance company involved and in the end all the companies and the courts agreed it was his fault for not driving properly!! I do take the point though that in most cases the one running into the back of someone else is at fault.

 

[Crackle]

The roads around here are very narrow as you can see from that pic, and the verge on either side there isn't a verge, it is a 3ft deep drainage ditch.

As an aside, I have devised a training run for myself which involves a 800ft of climbing up a cat 4 hill, and then a descent down a cat3 one. I rode it yesterday evening in rush hour traffic and I was clocking about 45 in a 50 limit with solid double white lines on the downhill. I had about a dozen cars crossing these solid lines whilst I was doing that speed as they were desperate to overtake me to join the line of cars in front doing a similar speed to me. There are plenty of instances I can recount of cars doing stupid things, but these overtakes ont he downhill were all willful and deliberate stupidity...the rear ending guy caught my colleague this morning also displayed bad judgement...but willful stupidity like I experienced last night ???

What do you think ?

I think what you recount is familiar to most of us on a bike. I think a significant percentage of drivers don't know how to drive around cyclists, maybe don't know how to drive. I think of that percentage, a tiny fraction, wilfully and knowingly put you in danger, I think the vast majority of drivers are OK, otherwise I probably wouldn't be here.
I think that deploying lights and HiViz is not a wrong choice but making it the first part of a message on safety is wrong because it's not the primary thing that will keep you safe, that's what I think.

 

[Noodley]

They would make things worse as the dark bits get darker when using them

Was the driver in a dark bit?

 

[Linford]

Yes crap trolling 1/10.
For a start off, if your imaginary friend was riding into low lying sun he'd have been more viaible in dark clothing than in high viz. So the computer says NO on this occasion.

and @Leodis & @ianrauk

Given the weight of extra evidence (pictures, with the horses, power rangered up on the motorbike etc) do you still believe that I have fabricated this, am trolling for a reaction or (controversially) that I believe in what I have posted, and live by what I believe to be a sensible approach to mixing on the roads as a vulnerable user ?

Oh...here is one of me on the cycle taken at the weekend (just in case you think I made that up as well)

Trolling is IMO posting a POV which you don't really believe in, and do it purely to get a reaction.

Call me a 'Be seen' evangelist, but a troll for posting my concern about this very real danger to us at this time of year ?

Get real will you !