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

[glenn forger]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Markymark]

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]

would side with the person who used the best grammar?

Better, not best.


GC

 

[glenn forger]

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]

[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]

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]

I see no proof that the driver is a liar.

 

[MisterStan]

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]

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]

[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]

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.