I’m not sure a custodial sentence is appropriate, a conviction for driving without due care and attention certainly is (perhaps even dangerous driving), but the legal system doesn’t see it that way. I don’t make the laws (nor set the policy regarding their interpretation), and within the system as it exists, a moderate compensation claim is the best option IMO.

Of course, people who are happy to have incompetent drivers hitting clearly visible cyclists on open roads don’t have to take any action when they suffer such an event.

@thecaptain

Conviction? Compensation? Codswallop!

It was pondo who brought up the topic of custodial sentences. However hitting someone in broad daylight on an open road seems to be considered a fully acceptable standard of driving, so I agree with you that there is no prospect of that happening.

Seems to me that we need another term rather than accident to describe these, seeing as 99.999% of these collisions and near misses are neither at one end deliberate, nor at the other totally unavoidable, but rather could have been avoided if someone had done something different. And before the pedants start, I don’t mean not going out that day at all, etc. Then hopefully we don’t have to have this same bloody argument every time this subject comes up.

Unfortunately I was witness yesterday to a very near miss, that could easily have been avoided if the other driver wasn’t an absolute liability. Near where I live is a residential 2 Lane road with parking bays and passing spaces up one side. I pulled in to give passage to a cyclist coming the other way. He was clearly visible in a fluoro waistcoat and riding in primary, and travelling at a fair rate. The car behind me decided clearly not fast enough and overtook me straight into the oncoming cyclist, who was forced up onto the pavement. At the end of the road are lights, and I got out and confronted the driver who told me that there was plenty of room. When I asked how that was so because if the cyclist hadn’t gone on the path she’d have mowed him down, she changed her tune to ‘didn’t see him until too late’ and then ‘should have been on the path on that bit anyway’.

What hope do we have when that’s the attitude? She’d have got a far worse earful if she hasn’t had her kids in the car with her.

Do we not need collisions like this logged so the authorities get a clear idea of the overall situation and maybe change policies/law quicker?
Also for the ops situation this guy may need an eye test so a call from the police may help him get there.

You appear to have got that the wrong way round. Unless of course you are the old codger or your NCD is in some way linked to his.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that my NCD is full and my insurance goes up every year way beyond the rate of inflation. Something’s making it go up.

It was pondo who brought up the topic of custodial sentences.

I don’t particularly feel that this instance deserves a custodial sentence any more than it merits an insurance claim, but the point I was aiming at was that it seems people are very quick to seek legal advice when finicial compensation is in the offing – it’s always “you should report it and make a claim”, you never hear people say “you should report it and get them banged up”. Almost as though it’s seen as an opportunity to make cash, rather than a heartfelt cry for justice.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that my NCD is full and my insurance goes up every year way beyond the rate of inflation. Something’s making it go up.

I very much doubt it’s because of cyclists making claims for minor injuries when they’re hit by cars. My car insurance certainly doesn’t go up like that – if anything it’s been getting cheaper recently (I certainly pay significantly less now in absolute terms than I did for my first insurance premium 25 years ago), so maybe it’s because people like you are going round having more accidents collisions.

You know what I really hate? It’s when people on threads like this get confused between fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims with making genuine claims for injuries people receive through no fault of their own, and then suggest that you shouldn’t make a claim because it will affect their insurance premium. The former do have an effect on your premiums, the latter not really. It really isn’t blame culture to ask for a bit of compensation for your suffering when somebody else clearly is at fault.

I very much doubt it’s because of cyclists making claims for minor injuries when they’re hit by cars. My car insurance certainly doesn’t go up like that – if anything it’s been getting cheaper recently (I certainly pay significantly less now in absolute terms than I did for my first insurance premium 25 years ago), so maybe it’s because people like you are going round having more accidents collisions.

Sorry to mislead you – I wasn’t specifically blaming cyclists making claims, I was blaming people making fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims. And touch wood, no collions just yet – lie yourself, in real terms my insurance is cheaper now than it was when I first started driving,, but since my NCD maxed, it’s definitely started going back up, Has yours not? If so – who do you insure with, and what’s their number!

You know what I really hate? It’s when people on threads like this get confused between fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims with making genuine claims for injuries people receive through no fault of their own, and then suggest that you shouldn’t make a claim because it will affect their insurance premium. The former do have an effect on your premiums, the latter not really. It really isn’t blame culture to ask for a bit of compensation for your suffering when somebody else clearly is at fault.

Well, that’s where we differ – if something gets damaged, I’d like it to be paid for if someone was at fault for the damage. Compensation? No thanks, I’m not American.

Accident implies it couldn’t have been avoided

No! No it doesn’t! It means that it wasn’t a planned or intended outcome. It does not imply either that it was unavoidable (and to explore that one we’ll need a proper philosophical debate about causality which I really don’t have the time for today) or that it wasn’t someone’s fault, either due to negligence, incompetence, carelessness or any other reason other than intentional malicious action.

FFS, look the word “accident” up in any dictionary you care to – the word does not mean, or imply, lack of culpability, responsibility, or negligence on someone’s part, or that it’s unavoidable. It simply doesn’t.

You’re not being pedantic, you’re trying to change the meaning of a word. You’re simply being wrong.

Both of you have a point – it would be termed an accident in aracers example where someone overtakes and runs into a cyclist. IMHO that is not an actual accident as their, irresponsible, behaviour absolutely caused the “accident” and I think the same applies for DONK’s scenario where it would be better if we called it negligence rather than an accident.

The real problem is many accidents were foreseeable and were caused by the inatention of one party and they caused the event – perhaps we should talk about negligence or similar as often one party is the absolute cause of the accident and accident suggests it was no ones fault which is rarely the case.

n unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:
I am not sure you can pull out into the other side and hit a cyclist that was always there and claim it was “unexpected” but we would assume it was “unintentional”
We need more words basically as you both have a point

accident suggests it was no ones fault

Why do people keep saying this, when it’s not true? Genuine, honest question. I’ve posted (as have others) definitions of the word accident, I’ve suggested people look it up for themselves in any dictionary they feel like, and yet, what keeps coming back? “accident implies no one’s fault”.

Could someone point me to a serious definition anywhere (i.e. not one that you’ve just created in your own head) that says that the word “accident” suggests or implies that the event is unforseeable, unavoidable or not someone’s responsibility. ‘Cos I’ve looked it up in a number of places now, and I’ve not seen this anywhere (apart from on this forum).

I wasn’t specifically blaming cyclists making claims, I was blaming people making fraudulent insurance claims and inflation of legitimate claims.

So not a claim for a legitimate injury then – in which case why bring up the issue when nobody is suggesting making a fraudulent claim?

in real terms my insurance is cheaper now than it was when I first started driving,, but since my NCD maxed, it’s definitely started going back up, Has yours not? If so – who do you insure with, and what’s their number!

Note my words carefully – I said in “absolute terms”, not “real terms” – putting the numbers into an inflation calculator, in real terms it’s less than 1/3 the cost. Mine has certainly fallen in real terms in the last 5 years, having now had full NCD for 16 or 17 years – I think it’s actually decreased in absolute terms every year for a few years, though I’ve just changed car which complicates things. FWIW I’m with Frizzell who provide cover for the CSMA, which is as an organisation doubtless way down at the low risk end of the market (I’m probably actually a far more dangerous driver than their average!)

if something gets damaged, I’d like it to be paid for if someone was at fault for the damage. Compensation? No thanks, I’m not American.

So if you get seriously injured, or even just badly enough that you’re hobbling around and unable to take part in your usual sports it’s OK for the person at fault just to say “sorry mate”?

OP I would report the driver (with hindsight). Clear, lightish, straight road and he managed to hit you. I’d question whether he has eyesight, medical or distraction issues. I think hes an accident waiting to happen.

On a side-note on Snake Pass here in the north I’ve lost count at the amount of drivers who overtake cyclists staying in the same lane (double-whites) or just before a blind bend. The nervous steering wheel-wiggle with nervous mirror back-look – I hate that.

Chapeau to the cyclists who ride there. I wouldn’t.

often one party is the absolute cause of the accident and accident suggests it was no ones fault which is rarely the case

No it doesn’t! Stop it. Seriously, just stop it. Accident does not suggest no-one was at fault. Stop changing words to mean different things.

I think police started calling them RTCs because if you call it an RTA then it rules out any ‘foul play’ and all you’re left with is ‘not driving properly’. So if I get all angry with someone and run them down in the street and the police call it an RTA they’re saying I didn’t intend to run the person over. Just like if they find someone with a knife wound, they don’t call it an ‘accident’ but they don’t call it attempted murder either, not until they know what’s happened.

Back to the OP. It sounds like an accident but you seriously need to consider reporting it. He might have failed to see a dozen cyclists already but just got within a few cm of them rather than making contact, so he didn’t stop.

The police need to be aware of it and make him get his eyesight checked out.

Don’t worry about him going to jail or anything, they didn’t take any action when I sent them video of me being clipped by an old guy who just carried on down the road. He’d seen me, just wanted to beat me to the pinch point, so your driver won’t be put in the stocks, if the police are feeling really draconian then they’ll go and have a word, but that’ll be it.

🙂

Edit – Can’t be bollixed.

Glad you didn’t come-off too badly, Bennyboy.

Why do people keep saying this, when it’s not true?

Shall I repeat what i said?
i think people often use the word it was an accident to mean i did not mean to do it/it was not my fault / I am not culpabale.
It was an accident i never meant to sleep with your sister – its an attempt to absolve oneself of blame.
dictionary definitions do not keep pace with usage – see literally for example though this has been corrected this year

If you disagree i offer you a fulsome* apology

* you may wish to check out what that really means as I always offer a fulsome apology when under duress

ful·some (flsm)
adj.
1. Offensively flattering or insincere. See Synonyms at unctuous.
2. Offensive to the taste or sensibilities.
3. Usage Problem Copious or abundant.

its not what most folk think it means. However it is ,generally, used inaccurately to mean a sincere and full apology

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

as posted by rickt earlier, is unexpected not the same as unforeseeable? (I never argued against unintentional) You maybe right about the blame part of the dictionary definition but words aren’t always used by the public as cited in a dictionary are they? I feel that sometimes people say “sorry it was an accident” in an effort to absolve themselves of blame as tho that makes everything OK (woody said something similar earlier). Driver just nearly killed you, you pull them up on it and they play the accident card to try to stop you critiquing their driving. Pretty sure I’ve never heard someone say “it was an accident and it was entirely my fault” it always seems to be used to dodge blame.

we seem to be bickering a bit here so I’ll probably step away now.
Hope OPs arm isn’t too bad today.

Where does it come from? The rest of the world seems to understand what an accident means, why do singletrackers seem to struggle with it?..

..every time I see a thread where accidents are discussed we seem to get this weird thing trotted out that someone was at fault and therefore “it’s not an accident” which is not only really weird, but also something I’ve never, ever come across anywhere other than on here.

I would really love to know why it is

I don’t think that is an exclusive Singletrack thing.

I seem to remember that some governing body (Home Office or ACPO maybe) advised a while ago that the Police and emergency crews should refer to them as “Road Traffic Collisions” not “Accidents”, as the term accident implied nobody was at fault.

Pretty sure I’ve never heard someone say “it was an accident and it was entirely my fault” it always seems to be used to dodge blame.

Kind of like SMIDSY, which I always assume is an admission of guilt, but those using the term probably don’t intend that.

Fair enough JY, and I’m not some old colonel who insists that the word “gay” means cheerful and always will do, but with the exception of this forum, I honestly think the rest of the world is pretty comfortable with the word accident meaning what it is defined to mean, and I don’t think you can really change the meaning of words at will and then by using them with your changed meaning, make the new meaning a valid one.

For language to be any use, we need a common understanding of what the words mean, and, although some do change over time, by and large they don’t. I honestly don’t think that “accident” is one that has. If it had, I would have thought people like ROSPA (who use it in their name) and the HSE (who have statutory responsibility for investigating the things, including apportioning blame / responsibility) would have noticed and come up with another word (or words) to describe what they think is currently described by the word “accident”.

Surely, if anything, as a society we’re becoming more used to the idea that accidents are most probably someone’s fault – haven’t you seen those ambulance chaser adverts: “Have you had an accident at work?…” – it used to be that you had an accident (at work or wherever) and shrugged it off as “just an accident” – increasingly it seems that a sizeable number of people’s thought process is more along the lines of “I’ve had an accident – who can I sue?” which brings the idea of “accident” and “fault” or “culpability” closer together, not further apart.

EDIT: @D0NK – I’m really surprised that you’ve never heard anyone admit to being responsible for causing an accident. Hopefully this is because you lead a charmed life and don’t find yourself in circumstances where the situation arises. I’m afraid my life is not as blessed, and I have.

Kind of like SMIDSY, which I always assume is an admission of guilt, but those using the term probably don’t intend that.

Yes, similar, isn’t it? They’re saying that they didn’t nearly kill you by intent, but through their own negligence – i.e. it was, what’s the word? Accidental.

btw, my response to “SMIDSY” is generally “You mean you weren’t looking?”

I honestly think the rest of the world is pretty comfortable with the word accident meaning what it is defined to mean, and I don’t think you can really change the meaning of words at will and then by using them with your changed meaning, make the new meaning a valid one.

Here we disagree I think it is already used that way, I alone cannot change the meaning of words, and i gave an example.
You have to accept we use it to reduce our blame at the very least.
I accidentally did X – suggesting not your* fault/not responsible]
or

I did not fully weigh up the consequences and the likely outcomes of the behaviour i was about to engage in and was therefore wholly responsible for the events that befell me [ suggest your* fault and you are an idiot/responsible]
* i dont mean you personally here edlong to be clear!

they are not the same thing IMHO as one appears to not take or reduce personal responsibility.

It interesting as its a bit of both hence why I suggested we use negligence or a different word

So not a claim for a legitimate injury then – in which case why bring up the issue when nobody is suggesting making a fraudulent claim?

I was speaking broadly about the growing eagerness for litigation – however, from now on I’ll limit myself to the specifics of the original post. 🙂

I think it’s actually decreased in absolute terms every year for a few years

Envious.com. 🙁 Mine goes up every year, unless I shop around – I’ll be giving your fellers a shout next time it’s up for renewal… 🙂

So if you get seriously injured, or even just badly enough that you’re hobbling around and unable to take part in your usual sports it’s OK for the person at fault just to say “sorry mate”?

Well – broadly speaking, yes. It doesn’t even sound like that’s the case in tis instance, as as far as I know the chap’s got away with a sore arm and a serious scare, but sh!t happens. I’ve had a bad back over the last few months, it’s meant I’ve missed a sportive, I could lay it at the door of my new office chair, but I’m not going to try and make a claim for compensation based on it, not even going to ask for an apology as I’ve now got a comfy chair and the back’s on the mend. Sh!t happens.

Off topic somewhat, I remember being in a pub in town when a gentleman asked to see the manager so he could log an incident in their accident book, he’d caught the edge of a screw on the stair bannisters and scratched his finger, didn’t even draw blood, but he demanded to have it put in the accident book and have a sign put on the bannisters to warn people. This was all done, but he and his ladyfriend were largely barracked from the premises by a bunch of people unhappy at the futility of it (and that he was taking up the sole barman’s time with it) – it’s just the mentality of it that I hate. It’s just a scratch, fer chrissake, I had a look and I don’t even know how he scratched himself, the protrusion was so small.

Sorry – I said I was going to stay on topic! 🙂

Report the fella for sure,car pulled out in front of me of a while ago and although i hit the car, neither the bike or myself were injured/damaged in anyway. The bloke was as shocked as i was and very apologetic,but as i wasn’t hurt i just carried on. I wasnt going to report it, however the chap i was riding with did. Turns out the fella in the car was banned from driving (drink driving, caused a fatality) and car was uninsured. He shouldn’t have been driving, end of.

Dodgy chairs and sticking out bits of screws are hardly the same as getting hit by somebody with a car are they?

It doesn’t even sound like that’s the case in tis instance, as as far as I know the chap’s got away with a sore arm and a serious scare, but sh!t happens

Post up your cycling route and I will make sure “shit happens to you”

What an odd argument to make when someone has been hit by a car that overtook him leaving insufficient grounds to do so.

scratched his finger, didn’t even draw blood, but he demanded to have it put in the accident book and have a sign put on the bannisters to warn people.

You should see how worked up some people get about cycling in parks:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cEwtbRndVo[/video]

You should see how worked up some people get about cycling in parks

I must be missing something – where is the “big ****ing sign no cycling”?

Dodgy chairs and sticking out bits of screws are hardly the same as getting hit by somebody with a car are they?

I did preface it by saying it was a bit off-topic… 🙁

Post up your cycling route and I will make sure “shit happens to you”

What an odd argument to make when someone has been hit by a car that overtook him leaving insufficient grounds to do so.
Sh!t DOES happen – I don’t mean it dismissevly, it’s not that I’m not concerned about the OP or don’t care that he got hit. It’s not an argument, it’s an observation – it’s why I don’t think we should rush to claims direct when we scratch our fingers on the edge of the screw on the pub bannisters, or get clouted on the arm by some driver who was too busy picking his nose to see the lights and hi viz.

I must be missing something – where is the “big ****ing sign no cycling”?

According to the description on YouTube:

“Having contacted Lambeth Council and The Friends of Kennington Park to clarify this matter they confirmed that there are currently no restrictions to cycle in and across the park and the signs shown at the entrance, part of the tarmac were placed there at the time of its construction and they are no longer valid. In fact, they not only are going to be removed but also the whole path will be redesigned. They have not dates for that though.
There are at least another 12 cyclists riding across the path during this incident.”

So not only were they obnoxious and aggressive, they were also wrong. ****.

O/P glad your ok andf same for the ride leader, OK meaning still alive, as its so easy for a ton plus of vehicle to kill a squidgy cyclist.

Report the driver to the police as youve suffered an injury collision.

Next cyclist may not be so lucky.

You should see how worked up some people get about cycling in parks:

Arrrrrrgh. What utter, utter bellends. Just because they think they’re in the right (which they aren’t) they think they have free reign to intimidate and harass. So much for live and let live. Well done the passers by for standing up for the rider.

it’s why I don’t think we should rush to claims direct when we scratch our fingers on the edge of the screw on the pub bannisters, or get clouted on the arm by some driver who was too busy picking his nose to see the lights and hi viz.

they are at opposite ends of the scale of claim IMHO
One is indeed shit just happens – i would have told them about it and nothing more
The other is someone nearly killing you – what 3 more inches over?- when they are legally bound to give you a wide berth and pass only when safe to do so- ie a human is doing something deliberately rather than an inanimate object is a bit worn out.
One is indeed shit happens the other is dangeorous. lack of attention etc