Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
VocalDuck · 12/02/2017 11:58

The only dampener on your theory, OP, is whether someone who had been up to nefarious shenanigans really would have gone to the police about the collusion, rather than just disappearing.

AwaywiththePixies27 · 12/02/2017 12:13

Only ever had a few driving lessons. Aren't you meant to look again before pulling out? I say this as someone who constantly has to keep hold of my DCs on the school run when we walk because of the amount of drivers who never look when pulling out of their drives. There's going to be a serous accident one day with the amount of schools around here.

Are you still meant to phone the police if the other person refuses? . Generally I'd say yes. At least you've contacted them then and the police can decide for themselves whether they need to attend. I'm sorry but I have to say YAB a bit U. He should have insisted on ringing the police at the very least. I was once on a bus that knocked a cyclist flying as she came out of nowhere. She got up and insisted she was fine. No police or ambulance. Driver said that may be so but he was legally required to contact the police.

angeldelightedme · 12/02/2017 12:22

If someone is injured in a road accident tha law id that the police must be called and an ambulance automatically attends. Someone in shock or concussed is not best placed to assess their condition!

AwaywiththePixies27 · 12/02/2017 12:29

The fact remains that when a cyclist is involved in a collision they are then primary cause in up to 90% of cases. As with this instance, the cyclist is to blame, unfortunately he is happy to lie to the police and try to defraud the insurance company too! Cycling remains the most selfish mode of transport, and with riders like this it is not much of a surprise.

My exDH cycled to work every day for the best part of five years. He never once caused an accident Confused

I witnessed a cyclist swerve through a load of buses on a bypass the other week, in the fog, with no lights on whatsoever or protection. Of course he was a total tool for doing so but to tar them all with the same brush, even if it is just 90% is a bit ott.

PossumInAPearTree · 12/02/2017 12:49

Total bollocks that cyclists are to blame in 90% of accidents spouted by a self confessed anti cyclist poster of which mumsnet seems to have many.

You only need to look at ROSPA to see it's not true

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions."

PossumInAPearTree · 12/02/2017 12:52

The fact remains that when a cyclist is involved in a collision they are then primary cause in up to 90% of cases. As with this instance, the cyclist is to blame, unfortunately he is happy to lie to the police and try to defraud the insurance company too! Cycling remains the most selfish mode of transport, and with riders like this it is not much of a surprise.

And please remember we're getting one side of the story here. Quite possibly on a cycling forum there is a thread running along the lines of "I was cycling at a reasonable speed on a marked cycle path and some idiot pulled out a drive without looking. I didn't have time to avoid him and my bike is wrecked. To make it worse the driver is now lying saying he was stationary and I was going to fast"

PossumInAPearTree · 12/02/2017 12:57

And when you look at the stats concerning collisions between cars and adult cyclists only (so removing accidents with child cyclists) the percentage of accidents where the Motorist is at fault is 75%.

I don't see how anyone can say cycling is selfish when it causes less congestion and less pollution than driving.

alltouchedout · 12/02/2017 13:08

Everyone banging on about how he should have looked right again.... then something could be approaching from the left since he turned to look right! You can't sit there all day looking both ways

As I'm about to start driving lessons I'd love someone to explain the 'look right, left then right again' thing to me because the above is pretty much what I thought. Why do I need to check my right twice and my left just once?

VocalDuck · 12/02/2017 13:16

For those saying cyclists are normally at fault, I have seen some horrifically dangerous car and bus drivers, motorcyclists and horse riders on our roads as well.

paddypants13 · 12/02/2017 13:50

I think your dh was responsible for the accident (it sounds like he pulled into the path of the cyclist) but he didn't leave the scene the cyclist did. I would advise him to report it to his insurance and just tell the police the truth.

WomanWithAltitude · 12/02/2017 14:20

He definitely did leave the scene without reporting it!

SoupDragon · 12/02/2017 15:46

Why do I need to check my right twice and my left just once?

Because the first traffic you will run the risk of hitting is coming from the right.

If turning left, right, left, right again is sufficient - you will be looking to the left again as that is the way you are driving! You only need to check left once because you would 1) have seen if something had gone past you and 2) be looking left again as you turnthat way anyway.

If turning right, you would probably look left again before entering that lane.

alltouchedout · 12/02/2017 16:45

Thank you SoupDragon :)

clarabellb · 12/02/2017 21:02

The handbrake was on? So your DH was stationary? Surely it's the cyclists fault then?

ivykaty44 · 12/02/2017 21:27

Straight road, cycling within the speed limit, if it had been another car there would have been more damage to the car pulling out of the junction. Fortunately nobody was injured.

The cyclist wasn't at fault

ivykaty44 · 12/02/2017 21:31
And this one
ivykaty44 · 12/02/2017 21:33

The car pulls out from a side junction and stops, doesn't make it the cyclists fault just because the car has stopped

clarabellb · 12/02/2017 21:49

Rubbish, if you go round a blind corner you can't just expect the road to be clear!

ivykaty44 · 12/02/2017 21:56

Did you see the car pulling out on the straight road?

bruffin · 12/02/2017 21:58

ivykaty being on bike doesnt absolve from riding without due care and attention

Snoopysimaginaryfriend · 12/02/2017 22:04

If someone is injured in a road accident tha law id that the police must be called and an ambulance automatically attends

True about the police, absolutely false about the ambulance.

mathanxiety · 12/02/2017 23:27

Agree Clarabellb wrt blind corners and preparedness, and also wrt the handbrake. The person in motion is at fault.

pollymere · 13/02/2017 00:10

You have a legal obligation to report any accident to the police, whether anyone appeared injured or not, otherwise it is classed as a hit and run...sorry.

Kr1stina · 13/02/2017 08:28

No, you don't have to report an accident to the police unless someone is injured. You just exchange insurance details with the other party.

If you have an accident and no one is injured , you can leave the scene without giving details but you have to report it to the police within 24 hours.

ivykaty44 · 13/02/2017 12:21

bruffin being in a car and pulling out into the possible line of other moving traffic, then stopping doesn't make any other vehicle crashing into the car the other vehicles fault. Being stationary doesn't absolve you from fault,

I witnessed a crash of this nature and the insurance company were extremely keen to talk to me and take a statement. It was similar to second video - except it was two cars, both cars were a mess but the car pulling out of the side road was at fault and with witness statement they could prove this.

The junction is on an angle and it's difficult to see, but the car shouldn't have pulled out and the second car wasn't speeding, wasn't driving without due care and attention.

Swipe left for the next trending thread