log in
register

Had my first bike-on-bike crash today

  • Creator
    Topic
  • April 22, 2015 at 12:07 pm #23802
    eddyhall

    So I was finishing a ride on the Bristol-Bath Railway Path and was pulling off to the right quite slowly to leave the path. I clearly had not checked over my shoulder well enough as another cyclist clattered into me from behind on the right of the path. She was going like the clappers, but I should have been more wary of turning right.

    We both picked ourselves up, dusted down and carried on our way after a few kind words. She seemed fine, as was I – just a few grazes and bumps. My bike, on the other hand, was a bit buggered. Left hood was bent inwards and left crank arm was bent in such that it would not clear the chainstays. I couldn’t ride home hence a 5mile walk pushing the bike.

    Anyway, I have a booking tomorrow for repairs and a long-awaited service at the Bristol Bike Project so we shall see how much this costs me.

    Cheers,
    Eddy

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • April 23, 2015 at 9:25 am #842847
    0
    Kadinkski

    She was probably in the
    She was probably in the process of overtaking you. Pretty difficult to avoid an accident on a narrow path if the overtakee swerves into the overtaker’s path.

    In my opinion she should have made her presence known and you should have shoulder checked. Sounds like you both handled it like sensible, mature adults though, which is nice to see. All this yelling and aggressiveness about blame and fault and the letter of the law is becoming so prevalent and tiresome.

    April 23, 2015 at 8:48 am #842845
    0
    il sole

    KiwiMike wrote:Shep73

    KiwiMike wrote:
    Shep73 wrote:
    Actually she is not in the wrong, the person changing lanes or turning across a path is creating the hazard. He’s right in his thinking that he should have checked. If he was in a car I doubt you would argue who was in the wrong, this is no different.

    Totally disagree.

    There is no ‘my side’ or ‘your side’. The overtaking cyclist has the ultimate responsibility to check their speed, signal their presence and ride with care.

    Yes, the OP *could* have shoulder-checked or indicated. But that’s no guarantee a rider behind saw the indication, or isn’t still going to do something daft.

    She had no idea if the OP were encountering a rough surface, or a child/dog/ball ran out in front of them.

    It’s not a road with lanes. Not that ‘lanes’ impart any right of passage or obligation to defer. Under UK law no-one has ‘right of way’ – at all. Quite the opposite, specifically to defeat the notion you can barge on through blameless.

    Shep73, if you rode into one of my wobbly kids from behind then blamed them, we would be having ‘words’. Just like in skiing, the onus is on the rider coming up behind to ‘give way’, use a bell, call ‘passing’ or ‘on your right’ etc etc, ***and to make sure it is safe to do so***. They can’t see what the person in front can see.

    Kiwimike is right. The ultimate responsibility has to lie with the cyclist coming from behind. You should always assume that anyone in front of you is going to do something unpredictable, whether that’s a cyclist not signaling, a car door opening as you go around parked cars, a car pulling out as they’re not looking out for a bike at a junction, or a pedestrian or horse rider crossing in front of you.
    Glad the op was OK though…hope the bike’s not too f*****d!!

    April 23, 2015 at 8:38 am #842843
    0
    KiwiMike

    Shep73 wrote:Actually she is

    Shep73 wrote:
    Actually she is not in the wrong, the person changing lanes or turning across a path is creating the hazard. He’s right in his thinking that he should have checked. If he was in a car I doubt you would argue who was in the wrong, this is no different.

    Totally disagree.

    There is no ‘my side’ or ‘your side’. The overtaking cyclist has the ultimate responsibility to check their speed, signal their presence and ride with care.

    Yes, the OP *could* have shoulder-checked or indicated. But that’s no guarantee a rider behind saw the indication, or isn’t still going to do something daft.

    She had no idea if the OP were encountering a rough surface, or a child/dog/ball ran out in front of them.

    It’s not a road with lanes. Not that ‘lanes’ impart any right of passage or obligation to defer. Under UK law no-one has ‘right of way’ – at all. Quite the opposite, specifically to defeat the notion you can barge on through blameless.

    Shep73, if you rode into one of my wobbly kids from behind then blamed them, we would be having ‘words’. Just like in skiing, the onus is on the rider coming up behind to ‘give way’, use a bell, call ‘passing’ or ‘on your right’ etc etc, ***and to make sure it is safe to do so***. They can’t see what the person in front can see.

    April 23, 2015 at 8:21 am #842841
    0
    brooksby

    Shep73 wrote:Actually she is

    Shep73 wrote:
    Actually she is not in the wrong, the person changing lanes or turning across a path is creating the hazard. He’s right in his thinking that he should have checked. If he was in a car I doubt you would argue who was in the wrong, this is no different.

    Compare and contrast with the comments on the “f*** the police” thread.

    April 23, 2015 at 7:43 am #842839
    0
    eddyhall

    I know that I should have
    I know that I should have checked over my shoulder better, but I also feel that she should have been travelling at a speed reasonable for her ability to handle unexpected things happening in front of her.

    I pitched the original post as a shared blame kind of example, but mostly to moan about having to walk home and take my bike in for spares and a fix.

    April 23, 2015 at 6:42 am #842837
    0
    Colin Peyresourde

    Agree with Shep. But the OP
    Agree with Shep. But the OP appears to know this. If he’d pulled over to the left and it happened then he would he right to be aggrieved.

    April 23, 2015 at 3:52 am #842835
    0
    Shep73

    Actually she is not in the
    Actually she is not in the wrong, the person changing lanes or turning across a path is creating the hazard. He’s right in his thinking that he should have checked. If he was in a car I doubt you would argue who was in the wrong, this is no different.

    April 22, 2015 at 1:10 pm #842833
    0
    eddyhall

    I always keep a pretty beady
    I always keep a pretty beady eye out for other people/bikes/cars, and this time I didn’t – hence the crash regardless of RoW. Thanks for the thought, though!

    April 22, 2015 at 1:09 pm #842831
    0
    eddyhall

    Perhaps, although I did not
    Perhaps, although I did not know my bike was busted up until we had gone our ways.

    I did have RoW, and she should have been mindful given my position and speed. She should also have been going slower. But I should not have turned right without a much better sweep ovwer my right shoulder.

    April 22, 2015 at 12:34 pm #842829
    0
    Anonymous

    I’d have thought in that
    I’d have thought in that instance you’d have RoW and she should’ve been mindful of your intentions and travelling at a more appropriate speed. I don’t think I’d have been happy with “a few kind words” and a 5 mile walk.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.