Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

SURELY DH didn't "run over" this cyclist??

364 replies

justanotherburd · 09/02/2017 21:02

I've namechanged

DH got into an accident with a cyclist this evening.

We live in a house with a cycle path going along in front of it- it goes driveway, path, pavement, road but the drive is at a sort of angle not directly in front of the house and we live next to a corner so the visibility is poor.

DH was going down the drive and road was clear. Looked right- clear, looked left, moved off of drive and then a cyclist smacked into the right of his car! He fell off his bike and DH jumped out to see if he was OK. Cyclist started yelling at him but DH thought he'd just got a shock, tried to calm him down and pick up the guy's bike. He then offered to drive the man to the hospital, cyclist refused, and the front of his bike was bent so he just walked away dragging the bike along.

DH then realised that the side panel of the car is quite scratched, but it's an old car and obviously that wasn't the first concern. Wrote it off to "life" and went off to work (he works evenings)

I had a phone call from police on the land line asking for DH though they wouldn't say why, gave them his mobile and he's just rung me saying they want to speak to him about leaving the scene of an accident after injuring this man!!! SURELY this isn't DH's fault?? He did everything he could and the man refused his help!!

I'm now angry as actually I think it WAS this cyclist's fault- and surely it was HIM that left the scene of him damaging our property! I saw what happened after the initial "bang" and then looking out upstairs window but was feeding DC and by the time I'd got downstairs the man had gone.

OP posts:
chasingrainbows27 · 10/02/2017 13:50

Olympia I'm a runner and I don't agree with you.

If I'm running round a blind bend I slow down because I don't know what is coming the other way. I don't want to be knocked down by a pedestrian, another runner, a cyclist as much as I don't want to run into a stationary car. Equally I don't want to knock someone else over.

If I see a car that looks like it might be approaching the pavement off a driveway, I usually hesitate and wait for the driver to signal that he is letting me cross his path or if not I wait; because I don't want to be run over. It's called paying attention and being aware/courteous of other road users. If a car is blocking a driveway I'll obviously run round the back of it.

I'm a fast runner too (average 7 mins per mile) and I always observe other path/road users so there really is no excuse. It's annoying and therefore if I want an uninterrupted run I go to a park or trail. That's just life.

Kr1stina · 10/02/2017 13:54

I agree with chasing . I've managed to never hit anyone or anything while I'm running ( apart from jostling at the start of races of course ) .

Wish I could run at 7min pace though Sad

Olympiathequeen · 10/02/2017 14:07

Well if the cyclist had no light and it was dark or twilight and he wasn't on a designated cycle lane but was on an unofficial path, and possibly under the influencethen of course he is in the wrong. Wouldn't worry about a head injury unless he actually fell off and hit his head or hit his head on the car. Sounds like a total twat, but unless posts are clear from the outset you can only comment on what you read.

As a mostly driver though I am horrified at the cyclist hostility that goes on generally. I feel, as the least vulnerable road user, a duty towards pedestrians, children playing chicken and cyclists.

Chasing .... a runner with earphones ran into the side of my car on a blind bend 2 weeks ago. Luckily no one injured or car damaged.

chasingrainbows27 · 10/02/2017 14:11

Olympia I can't speak for all runners but obviously neither can you. Just saying. One runner going into the side of your car is not representative of them all.

chasingrainbows27 · 10/02/2017 14:27

In response to your point about being a runner and not seeing a car around a blind bend that is.

categed · 10/02/2017 14:34

All people using the roads have a duty of care to themselves and others, walking riding, running, cycling and driving.
I have been hit whilst riding my horse by idiots going to fast on narrow farm roads, I have had cyclist fly by where there was no room to safely pass wide and slow. However the majority of people do use the roads with due care and attention.
My sh drives a lorry and whilst driving up a busy dual carriageway a cyclist doing a time trial cycled straight out of a minor side road. The only reason the cyclist didn't hit the lorry was due to do being able to move into the other Lane as it was clear and his load was light enough. Otherwise this cyclist would have cycled into the side of a lorry going full speed a d certainly have died.
No one has a right to ignore other road users and we all need to do our best to eked everyone safe. E.g. vehicles in good working order, lights, protective gear etc etc

Dumdedumdedum · 10/02/2017 14:52

Isn't the phrase used in the Highway Code "you must not drive without due care and attention"? And is it not relevant to all highway users, not just car drivers?
Anyhow, I'm really glad for you and your DH, OP, that the police have got the measure of the situation and that Olympia doesn't work for the police.

Eliza9917 · 10/02/2017 15:31

If the cyclist collided with the side of the car, the cyclist hit your DH.
If the front of the car had smashed in to the cyclist side on, DH would be at fault as he would have hit the cyclist.

I'd counter claim for the damage against the cyclist, claiming he collided with DH.

Cyclists and their lack of road tax and insurance are a bit of a peeve of mine.

PossumInAPearTree · 10/02/2017 15:39

eliza if you were driving at 60mph on a main road and a car pulled out a side road immediately in front of you so even though you braked you still hit them in the side. Would you say that was your fault because you had gone in the side of them? Or would you be a tad cross that they'd pulled out in front of you when it was your right of way?

Because it's the same situation, just with a bike instead of a car.

Eliza9917 · 10/02/2017 15:51

Oh also I suppose he didn't really think he had "hit" anyone as he wasn't actually moving at the time! Due to the path/pavement/road arrangement of wide-ness you have to be almost right off the drive to see the bend properly - his handbrake was on.

If he was stationary, then its totally the cyclists fault imo.

So your dh must risk it every time he pulls out. You've been lucky up till now. Not the cyclists fault you haven't sorted mirrors.

They would need a mirror on the other side of the road wouldn't they? Which means the council need to put them up as they would be street furniture, not mounted on the OP's property.

Eliza9917 · 10/02/2017 15:53

Also, if the cyclist refused to be medically examined, he wont be able to put in a claim for injuries on your insurance.

Eliza9917 · 10/02/2017 15:56

*eliza if you were driving at 60mph on a main road and a car pulled out a side road immediately in front of you so even though you braked you still hit them in the side. Would you say that was your fault because you had gone in the side of them? Or would you be a tad cross that they'd pulled out in front of you when it was your right of way?

Because it's the same situation, just with a bike instead of a car.*

But now it transpires that the car was stationary and the cyclist wasn't.

I have always been told that if another car hits a stationary car, that the moving car is at fault.

SoupDragon · 10/02/2017 15:58

Also, if the cyclist refused to be medically examined, he wont be able to put in a claim for injuries on your insurance.

Of course he will. He can be examined, say, today as injuries become apparent.

Gildedcage · 10/02/2017 16:03

Generally, a driver is expected to be able to react to an object in the road or a change in circumstances. To put your comment into some perspective, your driving down the road and a car pulls out, if the damage is to the middle of the car emerging then clearly it was there to be seen and you should have been able to stop, not being able to stop may suggest you are travelling too fast. In the same scenario there is an emerging car but the damage is to its front and your wing, well you were there to be seen and they should have given way. There is no hard and fast rule however and liability will be down to the circumstances.

sashh · 10/02/2017 16:09

what round a blind bend? what if that was a child waiting to cross an they hit them

  1. If they are stupid enough or young enough to think a blind bend is a suitable place to cross they need an adult with them.

  2. YOu don't stand in a cycle lane to cross the road, you stand on the pavement.

PossumInAPearTree · 10/02/2017 16:20

But now it transpires that the car was stationary and the cyclist wasn't.

I have always been told that if another car hits a stationary car, that the moving car is at fault.*

So the OP now says, which wasn't quite what she said initially. If it happened like she said initially but now they've changed their story the cyclist will never be able to prove it.

The thing about the moving car always been at fault is not true. Stopping distance at 60mph is over 200ft. So if a car pulls out a side road without looking 20ft in front of you you can't be expected to avoid him and it would be the other cars fault even if they'd pulled out and stopped. When I drive along an A road I don't slow down to 10mph every time I come up to a side road just in case a car pulls out. You have to have some faith that people won't pull out in front of you without looking.

PossumInAPearTree · 10/02/2017 16:29

This is what Injury Lawyers website says,

The main message is clear- if a vehicle is proceeding correctly and is established on the main road and a car pulls out from a side road, it is more than likely the latter that has failed to pay due care and attention and therefore they will most likely be found liable. Even if for example the person proceeding down the main road has flashed his lights for you to pull out, continued and caused you to crash in to him you may still be found liable as unfortunately you cannot use this as a defence.

therealpippi · 10/02/2017 18:04

Gallivanting I know, it was just in response to all those who were adamant it was his fault no matter what and to those who would not conceive that sometimes you do come out of a spot with very poor or no visibility and all you can do is make yourself be seen and advance slowly.

Anyway ignore me Grin

Blobby10 · 10/02/2017 19:03

Havent read the full thread so sorry if this has been said before but any accident or collision involving car and human HAS to be reported to police by driver even if no injury and irrespective of fault. I once had a lad of about 10 run into my car - I was going around 20mph - he wasn't injured, wouldnt give his name, wouldnt tell me where he lived. Still had to phone the police.

When I pull out of my workplace, I have to check the pavement for both pedestrians AND cyclists these days before moving forwards to the road and checking for cyclists and cars before I can pull out! Its a nightmare especially when cyclists on pavements dont have lights or light coloured clothing and they are moving at speed.

ivykaty44 · 10/02/2017 19:30

Eliza your a bit behind the times with road tax as it was abolished in 1937, to hold a grip this long about an old tax seems very extreme.

www.fastcoexist.com/3046345/how-copenhagen-became-a-cycling-paradise-by-considering-the-full-cost-of-cars

www.newscientist.com/article/dn28245-nitrogen-oxide-is-not-so-harmless-and-could-damage-human-health/

Emission tax on vehicles producing fumes doesn't actually stop people from premature death

Olympiathequeen · 10/02/2017 19:32

No I don't work for the police but I do know the Highway Code both as a driver and as a cyclist.

As the real police had all the facts (which no one on here did) and the cyclist was riding without due care and attention and not on a cycle path or the road, none of which was relayed clearly in the OP, the right conclusion was reached.

Still laughing at the notion of any cyclist doing 40 mph round a 90 degree bend!

Original poster
justanotherburd · 10/02/2017 19:46

Omg! Hilarious/scary update

So earlier on there was a sudden buzz of activity at the end of the road. Accross from the junction there are some houses on the right then a thin bit of industrial land left over from building work and track and then trees to the left. Police closed off the junction and went off down the track. DH being a nosy bugger went off to ask them what was going on. Apparently there has been a tip-off about some "illegal activities" down there and police will come question us at some point Shock

SO my theory is that our cyclist was part of these nefarious goings-on, had to make a quick exit and this explains a) why he'd got up such a speed (coming directly over the road from the track rather than round corner) and b) why he was keen to leave sharpish

Obviously no evidence for this whatsoever but it's nice to imagine little stories. Is it drugs? Doggers? Bear baiting!? Will be keeping an eye on the local rag though!!

OP posts:
SofiaAmes · 10/02/2017 19:49

I'm going with your theory even if it's not correct, it's a perfect explanation of everything!

ivykaty44 · 10/02/2017 19:56

Sounds like you live in a rough area, possibly the cyclist thought your dh was undercover cops

Original poster
justanotherburd · 10/02/2017 20:11

Yes while I fear my theory might just be too soap opera esque it is satisfying.

I better not tell the owners of the fancy new houses they live in a rough area....

The last "crime" was when a farmer's son went for a tractor joyride through our wee town so this is rather exciting.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread