If a cyclist causes an accident..

[Markymark]

I saw a cyclist blatantly RLJ this morning in central London causing a WVM to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her, she was IMO very lucky. The car behind the van also had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the van. The cyclist just seemed to carry on her way either oblivious or didn't care. The worst case for the cyclist would have been nasty as it was right across the van. The vehicles weren't going that fast so it would have been a few hundred £ insurance claims for them.

It go me thinking as to what I should have done had the car driven into the back of the van. Obviously the car was travelling too close to the van to react to the sudden braking so some fault lies there. But surely some fault would have been with the cyclist wo was illegally jumping the red light?

If she'd ridden off, would it be justified to catch up with her to tell her to go back as she was involved in a collision? What if she refused? What if it had been more serious and someone was injured?

 

[Sara_H]

If someone is oblivious to the fact that they've caused an accident it can't do any harm to tell them.

The rest is down to the police and insurance companies to sort out.

A driver drove into me a year ago and drove away (mind you, he knew he'd driven into me, he was hoping to get away with it). The police response was laughable.

 

[ianrauk]

I would have certainly told her in no uncertain terms what she had caused. And to get herself back there.

 

[pablo666]

I would have certainly told her in no uncertain terms what she had caused. And to get herself back there.

No legal obligation to stop and give details for a cyclist. Big Moral obligation though!

 

[Dan B]

It go me thinking as to what I should have done had the car driven into the back of the van. Obviously the car was travelling too close to the van to react to the sudden braking so some fault lies there. But surely some fault would have been with the cyclist wo was illegally jumping the red light?

If the van had stopped suddenly to give way to an emergency vehicle, or because a child ran into the road, or because its front wheels both fell off, and the car behind ran into it, it would be completely an unambiguously the car driver's fault for following too closely. Unless the cyclist and the van driver were conspiring to commit insurance fraud, I suspect (although I am not a lawyer) that in this case it'd be the car driver's insurance paying out

 

[Markymark]

If the van had stopped suddenly to give way to an emergency vehicle, or because a child ran into the road, or because its front wheels both fell off, and the car behind ran into it, it would be completely an unambiguously the car driver's fault for following too closely. Unless the cyclist and the van driver were conspiring to commit insurance fraud, I suspect (although I am not a lawyer) that in this case it'd be the car driver's insurance paying out

I absolutely take your point. What, for example, if the van had to swerve to avoid the cyclist and hit another car? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to envisage the scenario where a cyclist causes an accident and rides off.

 

[Licramite]

you get hit from behind, its the car behind youse fault.
as happened to me - a car hit me in the back - pushed me uphill into the car in front. I still had to be the guilty party in his (the car in front) claim. - even at the time I was sitting , with my engine turned off and the handbrake on.
so if the car in front stops for whatever reason , its your fault if you hit him.
It doesn,t matter cyclist or another car, if they make you swerve,brake ect and you don't hit them but hit another car, they are not part of the accident. you are very unlikely to be able to claim against them.
Its the classic "I'm a good driver , I see loads of accidents in my rear view mirror though"

If the bike actually hits your car then you can chase them and get thier details - as happened to a friend of mine, but the insurance companies are not interested as they aren,t insurered and its not worth going through the courts to get the money. - its just your no-claims that gets nailed.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Reading this I am reminded of the video of the cyclists in San Francisco who were taking part in some sort of checkpoint race. Most of them were riding like absolute bum-holes with absolutely no regard for others. They caused a lot of people to brake and a lot of pedestrians to jump out of their skin. One of them was interviewed and said that he had very very rarely ever had an accident. I just thought to myself that he may have hardly been in any accidents but that he had probably seen loads of them as he looked back over his shoulder. Probably thinking to himself that he was lucky to get away from their before the idiot that caused it had got him as well. (I really hate those guys)

 

[Svendo]

The cyclist would likely be civilly liable, due to owing a 'duty of care' to other road users and being negligent in RLJing. However as Licramite writes, the victims have the option of suing the cyclist directly, or going through their insurance companies (who they would probably be obliged to notify even of they don't make a claim under the T&Cs of their policies) who would then have the option of suing the cyclist to recover their costs. And the first rule of civil actions is don't sue people with no money. Or when it's easier to recover the money from your policy holders.

 

[Svendo]

No legal obligation to stop and give details for a cyclist. Big Moral obligation though!

Do have a source for that? Is it like section VI of the RTRA, about speeding, which only refers to motor vehicles?
Answered my own question. It applies to 'mechanically propelled vehicles' which doesn't include cycles. Legislation is HERE.

 

[snailracer]

No legal obligation to stop and give details for a cyclist. Big Moral obligation though!

Do have a source for that? Is it like section VI of the RTRA, about speeding, which only refers to motor vehicles?

AFAIK:

After an accident, motorists are required to give details to anyone who wishes to make an insurance claim against them - cyclists aren't, because, historically, liability insurance was a legal requirement for cars only.

All road users are required to report traffic accidents in which they are involved to the police - this means a cyclist would have to give their details to the police, either at the scene if an accident is serious, or within 24 hours if not serious. AFAIK, cyclists don't have to give their details to members of the public.

 

[sidevalve]

Sorry but I really can't believe this. Someone breaks the law [and yes RLJ IS breaking the law, even for a cyclist] and we are all basically defending them ?!!
Ok, let's swap the scenario. A car jumps the red light, another vehicle stamps on his brakes and you, the cyclist swerve but clip the back of the car in front, come off, break a bone or two smash your bike AND get sued by the owner for damage to his vehicle. After all the "accident" was your fault. Of course the basic fault may be riding [driving] too close but the cause was the RLJ, [as a matter of interest I have noticed that even emergency vehicles with sirens and lights do slow down at junctions] The chances of "chasing after" the car that caused the whole mess are slim, the driver you hit after all will be trying to help you.
What's happening here is accepting that it's OK for one section of the road using public to cause an accident but not another.
This is EXACTLY why SOME cyclists get all of us a bad name and why SOME drivers hate and mistrust cyclists.

 

[GrasB]

If I had witnessed the event & it had ended in a collision I've stopped & offered my self as a witness to the people involved. I wouldn't have chased after the cyclist, etc.

Most collisions it's not one thing but a whole stack of things that weren't right to cause it. A car driver being to close to the vehicle in front is one of those things & probably the biggest contributing factor. However, the cyclists in this case was a total jerk.

All road users are required to report traffic accidents in which they are involved to the police - this means a cyclist would have to give their details to the police, either at the scene if an accident is serious, or within 24 hours if not serious. AFAIK, cyclists don't have to give their details to members of the public.

From what I understand why they may have caused it. However, because no contact was made with them they weren't involved in the collision & so there was no legal responsibility of the cyclist to do anything.

 

[Licramite]

the point is, the vehicle/cyclist that causes the accident isn't involved in the accident, he just sees (or doesn,t look) at the collisions behind him. - and merrily tootles off as you try and sort out the bump you just had.

If the cyclist crunches into a car because of it, well its upto the car owner to sue him, but bearing mind he cost he probabily just take the hit on his insurance (as I did when a cyclist cut accros my front from the opposite side of the road and smashed my front headlight, I stopped and he road into me - cost me £100, you can't take him to court for that)

I will admit when driving cyclists are a pain in the arse. (love to see them though, always give thier bikes the once over)

 

[400bhp]

the point is, the vehicle/cyclist that causes the accident isn't involved in the accident, he just sees (or doesn,t look) at the collisions behind him. - and merrily tootles off as you try and sort out the bump you just had.

If the cyclist crunches into a car because of it, well its upto the car owner to sue him, but bearing mind he cost he probabily just take the hit on his insurance (as I did when a cyclist cut accros my front from the opposite side of the road and smashed my front headlight, I stopped and he road into me - cost me £100, you can't take him to court for that)

I will admit when driving cyclists are a pain in the arse. (love to see them though, always give thier bikes the once over)

:sigh: