Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
25 posts • Page 1 of 1
I was reverse parking (rear to curb) when a cyclist travelling down the hill (the same way i was going) crashed into my car when i was backing into the spot. i did not see them as i was looking in the rear vision mirror. should they have givin my to me????
You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.
Also you don't give a lot of detail, where you were hit, how long you had been reversing, whether there was a marked bike lane etc so it's a little hard to say much other than point to road rule 296
So you are not starting from the greatest position
. . . . . . .
Yeah, I thought the rule was that the parker has to give way to traffic in the main road as they are parking (NSW). Having said that, so many rules have changed since I got my license I probably don't know half of them.
There may be some legal argument depending on where and how they hit you.
And it is also safe to say you don't know how to spell.....
What is it with cycling? 30+ kmh and lycra???!!!
having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.
No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.
The officer is not correct. There is no such law.
Come on team, give the OP a break. F7 aside, methinks it's a fair question. Not to mention the fact that a smokeboxer is actually willing to put his hand up and ask velonauts for advice. Better by far than bragging about it down t'pub.
My knowledge of the laws pertaining to this incident and the paucity of information makes it an impossible call so far.
London Boy 29/12/2011
The law exists. What the officer is repeating is a typical police interpretation - ie if you drive into someone who the police believe is stationary, you risk them assessing your driving as negligent. If you disagree you can have the matter heard at court.
I think we need to take a step back here.
On the one hand, the driver may have just stopped to reverse into a parking spot and the cyclist hit him from behind. That may go the way of the cyclist.
Lets also assume for a second that the vehicle indicated, stopped, started to reverse into the parking spot, and the cyclist hit him. To me that would be an altogether different situation.
Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong
+1 to all of this.
I think the only advice worth anything is to talk to someone about the law - police is a good start, though independent legal advice may be better in this case.
There's simply not enough info on the incident to make a call. And even if there was, an anonymous 'velonaut' (like that term ) on teh interwebs would not be my source of truth in such a case...
bruce, i disagree with your point....the cyclist has crashed into him.
it always annoys me when i read the following, " a motorcyclist crashed into a car when the car drove across yellow lines"...placing the blame on the motorcyclist when the car driver is at fault..
to me you are doing the same here....the car driver is reversing, the cyclist crests the hill then runs into him? I don't see that as the OP's fault....cyclist not maintaining proper distance or being able to break is my read on it.
That was my understanding also, whether it is actually correct is another matter, i don't know.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
I was hit from behind by a women in a 4WD on purpose...she left the scene of the accident to go to the police and proceeded to claim against me for insurance.
luckily i did all the right things in this instance and insurance denied her claim ( thank god for taking photos ) and my also heading straight to police station myself.
this is why i use a camera at all times on the road...
so hit from behind may mean many things...
You make a valid point, I should have said "had a collission with" rather than "crashed into" - I was deliberately trying not to say who was at fault because there was not enough information, as others have more eloquently put it.
You are correct, as long as you remeber the genrally bit. As Percrime said when you are reversing you can be hit square up the back and actually be at fault - see road rule 269 extracted above.
Amen to that Oz - these sort of threads should come with a disclaimer - "if you rely upon advice given anonymously on teh interwebs, we reserve our right to point & laugh"
. . . . . . .
Was she wanting to upgrade her SUV?
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.
depending on how I interpret this "(the same way i was going)", ie
The same way you where going when you where backing up
The same way you where going when you where going forward?
now this makes it sound like this interpretation "The same way you where going when you where backing up ".
if so, is one of you not going the wrong way?
I would think that the cyclist would be at fault, simply because hitting people in front of you needs to be a blanket decision unless you are found to have deliberately caused the accident with intent. Good luck proving the second situation.
It really seems that there needs to be a basic understanding of what is considered the default position, and work out the exceptions from there. Hitting from behind is a simple one, because you can't force road users in front to brake less if they need to stop. If you can't avoid them, you're too close or not paying attention. Pretty simple! It's the same as "give way to people already in the roundabout". It's presumed that you give way to the right, but sometimes a vehicle stalls inside the roundabout (or cyclist picks a big gear) and you can't just give carte blanche approval to poor sharing because a roundabout is NOT a straight road with stop signs blocking the other roads.
well there is another interpretation which says if you run into the back of a vehicle you are always in the wrong.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
Sod interpretations. State the appropriate state laws so a basis for sensible advice for the OP can be discussed.
If the "welcome" hasn't scared him off AND created a tabloid stereotype of cyclists in his mind.
London Boy 29/12/2011
The policeman said the reverser is always wrong. I don't agree. If that were the case, that means if I see somebody reversing, I can just ram into them and it is their fault. I don't see how that makes sense. Yes a reverser should give way but was the accident caused by the reverser not giving way? If the car had stayed still, would the collision have occurred?
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
There are scenarios where more than one driver can be at fault or charged with a driving offence.
25 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users