Richmond Park cyclist crashes into car’s rear window after driver slows to let geese cross road

Well I learned something today - these TT racers really are a menace!

my take wasnt so much about the glass breaking telling us about the speed of impact, because that glass can shatter very easily, and when they curve the glass especially you get all kinds of tension in it, along with the heating elements, that means even a tiny bit of pressure in the wrong bit could break it.

Its how does the cyclist/bike get to the rear window in the first place, its quite a high level boot,and the window is some way away from where youd assume the impact point would be, so there had to be enough momentum for the bike/cyclist to tip in to the car and roll over the boot to reach the window. Which to me implies the impact was at some speed.

Awavey wrote:

Its how does the cyclist/bike get to the rear window in the first place, its quite a high level boot,and the window is some way away from where youd assume the impact point would be, so there had to be enough momentum for the bike/cyclist to tip in to the car and roll over the boot to reach the window. Which to me implies the impact was at some speed.

Well, yes, there is that...

Then if you had previously been in front, you should have spotted the developing hazard.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Then if you had previously been in front, you should have spotted the developing hazard.

Oh I see, I'm proceeding safely and legally at the speed limit, a driver behind me suddenly accelerates hard past me in excess of the speed limit, realises that there's an oncoming vehicle that he's going to hit and cuts back in front of me when it's not remotely safe to do so and any subsequent collision is my fault for not anticipating that someone else will behave in a lunatic and illegal manner? I swear that if a cyclist was waiting at the lights and a pedestrian suddenly stabbed them from behind you and your nasty little coterie of alt-right anticyclist cyclists would find a way of blaming the rider.

Oh, Trendy Rendy cannot tolerate ANYONE to have a different opinion to his!

When will Trendy Rendy grow up, do you think?

.

Err, read the article. Geese, dear boy, geese.

Quack quack!

Perhaps you could enlighten us all by demonstrating that there were geese, where they came from and for how many seconds they were visible for before anyone arrived

hirsute wrote:

Perhaps you could enlighten us all by demonstrating that there were geese, where they came from ...

When a goose and a gander love each other very much, they give each other a special goosey cuddle.....

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Err, read the article. Geese, dear boy, geese.

Quack quack!

Geese don't quack, they honk and hiss. Well up to your usual informed standard.

Overtake followed by braking is not a developing hazard, it is an immediate one
I posted a pic this month of a mgif at a mini roundabout who fortunately decided to bail out in the hatched area.

"Even with hard braking, unless the car suddenly went into reverse, it is the fault of the cyclist"

If the car overtook then immediately braked this could cause the cyclist to crash into the back of the car.

I've had overtakes followed by brake checks a number of times in Richmond Park - normally caused by drivers hell bent on overtaking even when there's a queue of traffic clearly visible only 100m up the road.

Or was 'brake checked' - the car overtook then braked sharply, perhaps because of the aforementioned fowl.

We don't know all the specifics of this incident though, so not much point speculating.

I know we shouldnt, but damn it doesnt half feel very suspicious to me, I do know people who have ridden in to vehicles by mistake, so it can happen for sure, but its not my gut feeling how this one came about.

and fwiw brake checking is illegal, the old but I stopped to let the old mother goose cross the road isnt accepted as a valid reason if you caused an accident deliberately, so its a myth that the person who hits you in a rear end collision is always at fault.

Your Honour, never mind the facts, my gut feelings tell me that ......

Right. OK. Ehmmm, that now how courts work, 'fraid to say.

My gut feeling is that you actually are aware of the danger drivers pose to cyclists, hence your post on the NMOTD the other day about Traffic Refuge islands. Yet suddenly decide to come in here calling other people names (and then telling them to grow up), calling us all facists (ummm), and just generally wanting people to not like you. You missing your boo to back up it seems. Or been on the w(h)ine a bit too much?

No point speculating?

How DARE you, sir?

That's all that you get on here from the Bike-Fascists.

Driver is ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME at fault

By definition.

Cyclists, on the other hand, are NEVER, EVER are at fault.

Looks like you forgot the mnotd recently where the very first post criticised the cyclist.
Then you went on to complain how it is always the driver's fault in here.
Seems you also struggle with the idea of people having a different opinion.
As it is, there is wide opinion in this thread. Or did you get again fail to read what is written?

Losd wrote:

Even with hard braking, unless the car suddenly went into reverse, it is the fault of the cyclist.

Unless the driver overtook the cyclist and braked hard without due consideration for the cyclist, i.e. brake checked them. Then the geese appeared. Hopefully, the rider had a camera on their bike, and the truth will out.

Losd wrote:

Even with hard braking, unless the car suddenly went into reverse, it is the fault of the cyclist.

I blame Jeremy Corbyn.

OldRidgeback wrote:

I blame Jeremy Corbyn.

He was only trying to seize the means of production.

Personally, I suspect the geese of fowl play and did they honk before crossing the road?

Poor seasonal highway maintenance - they should have gritted the road (salt and pepper) if the conditions were geesy.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Poor seasonal highway maintenance - they should have gritted the road (salt and pepper) if the conditions were geesy.

I think it's important for motorists to get down off their high goose and drive to the conditions. After all, it's important for both people and animals to exercise regularly and the geese were getting fat.

I hope the geese turned round afterwards and said, "Now you buggers know what it feels like to get stuffed at Christmas."

Rendel Harris wrote:

I hope the geese turned round afterwards and said, "Now you buggers know what it feels like to get stuffed at Christmas."

Are you suggesting the geese were playing chicken? You can't expect us to gobble that up!

It matter not if something overtakes then slams its brakes on. The follower is at fault. As a principle you should be able to stop. If not slow down.

Until it is proved that this was a deliberate punishment stop then if anything at all is assumed it must be that the cyclist did not ride accodringly

mattsccm wrote:

It matter not if something overtakes then slams its brakes on. The follower is at fault. As a principle you should be able to stop. If not slow down.

Until it is proved that this was a deliberate punishment stop then if anything at all is assumed it must be that the cyclist did not ride accodringly

Not sure you meant to reply to me. However this isn't quite the whole story. I don't think you can assume anything here.

I believe you're correct in that there is a presumption in rear-end shunts that the party hitting the other is at fault.  However there are cases where the hit party has been held partly responsible.  Also I think for civil claims the burden of proving fault lies with the individual bringing the claim. (Note: I am not a lawyer!).

I think the principle as "pedestrian suddenly stepped into the road" or "cyclist suddenly swerved" should apply here *.  Consider if a driver overtook and then suddenly cut in and slammed on brakes - it's entirely possible that this would leave you in practice no way of avoiding a collision especially if on a bike where you may be slower and have less effective brakes than a car.

I have no idea what the facts were in this case - as I said elsewhere fault could be on either side.

* I'd be fine with some presumption that the more dangerous road user should pay costs in a civil / insurance matter unless fault of the more vulnerable road user was proved. Note that this is not "criminal" strict liability which many apparently think would a) be an easy change to make to the law and b) make cycling much safer somehow.

It's called brake checking and for cyclists, there is also the left hook. Neither of which allow the second road user scope to stop safely.

mattsccm wrote:

It matter not if something overtakes then slams its brakes on. The follower is at fault. As a principle you should be able to stop. If not slow down.

Until it is proved that this was a deliberate punishment stop then if anything at all is assumed it must be that the cyclist did not ride accodringly

Actually if you could demonstrate that was the case you would not be liable. That's the thing about presumed liability - it is challengeable.