Car Accident with a Cyclist

Chewiebacca on 03/09/2018 - 18:10
Last edited 05/09/2018 - 11:56 by 1 other user

Had a collision today with a cyclist, I was driving the car, all images at the bottom of thread.

I was coming off of Princes Highway in Victoria (Normanby Rd/Princes Highway), there is a small bridge with poor visibility and very frequently congested as it was today, cars waiting either side to be able to merge onto the highway from this choke point.

I was coming off the highway, and after checking right then left (yes this was the order I looked) I proceeded to drive out, where I drove into the path of the cyclist.

I was going ~5km/h (edging out), insanely slow as I had come to a full-stop, and carefully around a van that was obstructing the majority of the vision of the bike-path (and conversely, the bike to me). This is something I have always done with a lack of vision, edge out slowly to get more information.

Initially I took full blame for the accident, I thought this was a guy on a pushbike, I really did not see him at all (all I saw were queued cars, there was next to no visibility of the bike lane), I must've misjudged.

Whilst asking if I could give him a lift to wherever he needed to go, we tried fitting the bike into my car. Whilst scanning the bike for a way to detach the wheel to see if we could reduce its footprint, I noticed a large contraption ziptied to the bike (clearly a modification, numerous zipties), which he told me was an electric motor and all he really cared for on the bike (I mentioned it looked like a Kmart bike).

The damage to my car is pretty bad, bent on both door and fender as well as deep scratches, the door doesn't open correctly without bending the door significantly (it opens maybe 20 degrees).

What are your thoughts OZB? Just wondering the legalities, because after I saw the electric motor on the bike I began to doubt myself less, and in the moment I was much more concerned with his wellbeing than about any costs.

EDIT: I’ve already compensated the person for his bike, my point is the legality of the bike in the bike lane, refer to the images for an indication of the speed he was going and the damage to my car from a push bike.

EDIT2: Have been made aware that the electric motor conversion is a home job with an eBay kit, output of 350w when the legal maximum power output in Victoria is 200w (75% above) and is therefore not an e-bike but an illegal motorbike. I have not and never had any intention of pursuing this, from the onset this post was just to discuss the implications and legalities of electric motors and the circumstances leading to the collision.

https://imgur.com/a/M9ALUrx
All images here

Automotive

Comments

        • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:02

          @whooah1979: OP said that in another comment. No they didn't provide evidence, but we're not a court either - I assume OP had other photos or just asked?. I guess I don't see why OP would suddenly lie about it, when they've been happy to take responsibility up to now.

          But then some people take internet points seriously, who knooowwwss….

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 15:04

          @whooah1979:
          Since you would like to assume that I am lying, here you go, the links I was given in order to calculate how much was owed.

          https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/350W-26-Rear-Hub-Wheel-10AH-Elec…

          https://www.reidcycles.com.au/reid-vintage-ladies-bicycle-7-…

          It was his sister's bike, he had another with the same electric setup but not on a 'ladies' bike.

        • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:11

          @Chewiebacca: Shame you've already paid out, could've saved yourself a serious amount of money. Ah well - good teaching moment for the rest of us.

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 15:22

          @HighAndDry:
          Since the electric motor didn't appear to have any part of the impact (and he agreed since it was rear mounted) I would just compensate him for the bike unless the electric motor was found to be broken.

          I was just very much concerned that he may have died and for what is ultimately only going amount to be several hundred dollars I didn't want the hassle of arguing or getting caught up in a game of pointing fingers, it was just going to be extra stress that would impact my time and productivity that I preferred to avoid, and at least he was much happier.

          He was an international student, didn't have the greatest English, appeared to not know that the motor was illegal (he does now), it was all just enough for me to pay to put the stress to bed, and wanted to discuss it here anyway.

        • whooah1979 on 05/09/2018 - 15:51

          @HighAndDry:

          I’m not say op isn’t telling the truth. Op is accusing the rider of committing an offence without providing evidence to support their accusation. The widget does look like a casing for a battery. What we don’t know is it’s power rating.

        • whooah1979 on 05/09/2018 - 15:59

          @Chewiebacca:

          I’m not assuming that your story isn’t true.

          You’ve accused the rider of committing an offence but can’t provide evidence to support it.

          The link is for a 350w widget and may not be the same model as the one in your image. Did you see the spec label on the old widget? Who is to say that the rider got a new and upgraded model.

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 16:01

          @whooah1979:
          That is the one he sent me when we were discussing the amount for compensation, unless he has sent me a higher specced model to
          potentially jib me of more money, that is the one on his bike.

        • whooah1979 on 05/09/2018 - 16:11

          @Chewiebacca:

          Here is a link for a 200w. There is no way to tell the difference between them. This makes it easy for someone to get scammed.
          https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/173343085824

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 16:15

          @whooah1979:
          Yes it looks identical, and yes he could've very well scammed me if I'd paid for it however he determined it wasn't necessary as (if you look at the pictures) damage was isolated to the front and not to the motor, as I said I am on good terms with him as health and wellbeing has always been my number one priority (health is wealth is my slogan), and he by his own admission said he was going quick and could equally not see the traffic from the tunnel due to the very same van blocking my vision.

        • leonardr on 05/09/2018 - 17:36

          @whooah1979:
          You've changed your tack from "Motor vehicles have vin and engine numbers. A bicycle with an electric motor attached to its frame doesn’t make it a motorcycle."
          to "Prove it was over 200W", which doesn't make any sense since the advice everybody else is providing is given that the 350W rating stated by the OP and the rider himself are correct.

          Give it a rest

        • happirt on 05/09/2018 - 19:33

          @Chewiebacca: makes me wonder why was he going so fast if he could not see?

  • oscargamer on 04/09/2018 - 18:37
    +2

    You are at fault.

  • Herbse on 04/09/2018 - 22:19
    -4

    If bike riders want to ride on the road they need to be aware of cars that can't see them and expect this to happened

    • Euphemistic on 04/09/2018 - 22:35
      +2

      Victim blaming?

      Sure, you need to ride defensively, but drivers need to look properly too.

      • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:01

        This isn't victim blaming. If the rider was riding an illegal contraption going faster than legally allowed, they're as much a "victim" of their own negligence and recklessness as they are of OP's driving.

        • Euphemistic on 05/09/2018 - 18:08
          +2

          That’s ridiculous. herbse states bike riders should be preventing crashes, nothing about e-bike riders nor illegal bike riders.

          Additionally I very much doubt that a 350w e-bike would be exceeding the posted vehicle limit of probably 50 or 60, the op estimated 30km/h which would be well below it.

          The fact the bike may be illegal, we don’t know if the owner hasn’t limited the power to what would be legal. A presumed 350w by the op may not be true facts.

        • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 18:17

          @Euphemistic: oh yah as a general blanket statement it's a tad (or a lot) off, but in this case it might be applicable in terms being able to see a rider on an illegally powerful e-bike.

    • whooah1979 on 05/09/2018 - 05:47
      +1

      Motorists turning left, right or traveling through an intersection after being in a stationary position should always check if it’s safe to do move. The driver in this instance didn’t check and as a result failed to give way to oncoming traffic.

      • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 09:52
        +1

        You’re ignoring what I wrote, I checked left and right, if you refer to the image you can see that the bike lane passes between two cars (the one to the right being a large van), whilst creeping out slowly to make a right he slammed into my right fender. He didn’t see me in the tunnel under the bridge, and I conversely couldn’t see him.

        I don’t have evidence of him speeding, I closed the matter with him yesterday, however this area really needs to be regulated as a 350w electric motor mod is considered a motorbike and highly illegal.

        • matthewperk on 05/09/2018 - 10:29
          -2

          you looked left and right, but stated you were edging out - my guess because you still couldn't see everything. Thus you hadn't effectively checked.

          And get off your high horse with the 350w motor. You'd be lucky to get to 30km/h with that much power… Sure it's considered illegal. But if i was to check over your vehicle i'm sure i could find multiple defects that would list your vehicle as unroadworthy - and thus illegal.

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 10:47
          +3

          @matthewperk:
          Bravo, you guessed correctly, I indeed couldn't see everything, although it's not much of a guess given I stated that multiple times in this thread. This is just as he couldn't see everything either, there was a large van in the way from multiple vehicles trying to get onto the Princes Highway through this choke point.

          Look at the location of the damage front drivers R/H fender, I had barely moved out of the lane (edged out slowly for more vision) and the bike came through the bike path between the vehicles and collided into my car.

          A brief YouTube search has shown me videos of 250w electric bikes easily hitting 50+ km/h, why would a 350w be anything but more?

          I should forget about the 350w electric motor that was ziptied to his bike? I didn't know I could pick and choose which laws are enforced, especially when they pertain to vehicles on the road.

          But please, despite your bizarre approach to laws pertaining to vehicle roadworthiness, tell me more about how unroadworthy my car supposedly is?

        • timmypete on 05/09/2018 - 14:47
          +3

          @Chewiebacca:

          Bravo, you guessed correctly, I indeed couldn't see everything

          and

          he couldn't see everything either

          The whole purpose of stop/give way signs and lines is to place the onus on one party in these circumstances. Yes, the rider should have driven to conditions, but the legal responsibility and mistake is clearly the OP's.

        • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 14:54

          @tplen1:
          I had come to a complete stop, but yes as I stated I agreed that the fault is with me for being in the bicycle lane when he collided, I was just discussing what I believed to be something that for any driver would've been unavoidable (i.e it's a stop sign not a red light, in my years of driving through here nobody will hold up Princes Highway because of the chance of a bike speeding through the traffic buildup).

          The law is one thing, but having a modified pushbike that is legally considered a very unroadworthy motorbike riding through the bike lane doesn't make the situation any better and I wanted to know the bearing of this, as stated this wasn't ever about money as the same day I compensated the guy for his bike.

        • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:13
          +1

          @matthewperk:

          you looked left and right, but stated you were edging out - my guess because you still couldn't see everything. Thus you hadn't effectively checked.

          Have you ever driven before?

          Yes, OP couldn't see well enough, THAT'S WHY they were still edging out slowly. That's what you do when you can't see clearly because of obstacles. They were hit as they were edging out.

          Who's on the bloody high horse now?

        • BumbaT on 05/09/2018 - 20:00

          Did you need to use the words "highly", "insanely", "flying through", you don't need to add those words as it shows your own belief or opinion rather than an account of what is happening.

        • matthewperk on 06/09/2018 - 16:29

          @HighAndDry: yes I have. And yes i understand that's why the OP was edging forward, but that exact behaviour is what causes accidents. He's edging over the bike lane to see the cars. In doing so he's blocking the egress of a bike. Even blocking a 1/4 of the bike lane often leave no room for bikes and if he's doing so from a blind spot then the bike can't see him either. Edging out is one of the most annoying and dangerous behaviours for a cyclist. It mightn't seem like it to a driver, but you're in a metal cage protected from your naivety.

          It's pretty simple, don't edge out, have a moment's patience and avoid putting other road users in danger.

          EDIT: Let me clarify. I think at the end of the day the OP has done the right thing. But this discussion and the focus on the motor gives me the impression he's second-guessing his responsibility and that his driving behaviour was an acceptable and safe thing (edging forward).

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 17:05
          +2

          @matthewperk:

          It's pretty simple, don't edge out

          I'm still not sure you've ever driven. OP has no visibility if they don't edge out. You're basically proposing they just stop there forever - they can't "wait until there are no other vehicles" if they can't see if there are or aren't any other vehicles.

        • timmypete on 06/09/2018 - 17:27

          @HighAndDry:

          "wait until there are no other vehicles"

          Yep. That's exactly what the law is if you choose to drive a route with a stop line or stop sign. The traffic on the through route - even when obstructing vision - has right of way.

          This particular underpass coming off Dandy road is difficult, but there's a less rat-runny intersection with traffic lights not much further up. OP either has to accept the risks that accompany routes like this, skip the shortcut and find a easier turn, or lobby for a signalled intersection (unlikely given the priority of North-South traffic on both Normanby and Dandy roads) or vision improvements/keep clear markings.

          I'm concerned by the attitude underlying the "have you ever driven" comments. It's a basic road rule which presumably was asked on the licence exam.

        • HighAndDry on 06/09/2018 - 17:40
          +2

          @tplen1:

          I'm concerned by the attitude underlying the "have you ever driven" comments. It's a basic road rule which presumably was asked on the licence exam.

          Actually that's exactly why I ask. The licence exam is theory. It's all well and good to say, as you're saying, "to wait until there are no other vehicles". In practice, if you have zero visibility, then you have to edge out slowly to gain visibility, and hope that other vehicles will exercise the bare minimum of common sense of not running into what's basically a stationary vehicle.

          I mean, I'm hoping there's common ground here that you can't blindly stick to the letter of the law if the result is that you'll literally be stuck at an intersection forever - there must be an element of reasonable common sense, right?

        • timmypete on 06/09/2018 - 21:18

          I don't think we're going to agree here. Stopping at a stop sign is reasonable common sense in my book. As already mentioned, there are alternatives to a right turn in congested traffic at an unsignalled intersection.

        • matthewperk on 07/09/2018 - 09:33
          +1

          @HighAndDry:

          I drive on average 30-40,000km a year. So I drive a fair bit more than most.

          I am definitely proposing wait until you can see.

          I know the underpass/intersection that the OP is talking about well. I've gone through it many times as both a cyclist and a motorist.

          The reason the OP couldn't see was other vehicles. Not the design of the intersection. I'm aware of how packed it can get there with peak hour. But just because it's busy doesn't mean you should start undertaking dangerous driving practices. With patience the OP could have waited for the vehicles blocking his vision to move and at that point safely turn, knowing there were no oncoming road users.

  • Entropy Sky on 05/09/2018 - 00:45
    +2

    Pretty sure your insurance company would fixed your car, saved you few hundreds, excess free.

    And police giving that unregistered, unroadworthy, speeding in wrong lane motorcycle($2000+ see youtube highway patrol video)fine.

    • whooah1979 on 05/09/2018 - 05:55

      There is no evidence that the cyclist was speeding while riding their electric bicycle. If there is evidence then op hasn’t presented it in this post.

      • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 09:55
        -1

        I didn’t present because I have no evidence, and as stated numerous times it was never in my interest to take this guy to court to fight for a few hundred bucks in repairs.. I’m more concerned that he didn’t die and hopefully doesn’t ziptie that electric motor (350w, 75% higher than the max of 200w in Victoria) to another pushbike turning it into a completely uncomplied and unregistered motorbike.

        • Entropy Sky on 05/09/2018 - 10:15
          +1

          You paid the illegal motorcyclist from your own pocket to save the troubles.

          The illegal motorcyclist may pay with his life in the future on road, for he not only did not get punished for his illegal activities but rewarded.

      • Entropy Sky on 05/09/2018 - 10:11

        OP does not need to proof the illegal motorcyclist is speeding, that is the job of police.
        Police can work out the speed of the illegal motorcyclist from the damages done to op's car and motorcyclist' motorcycle.

      • happirt on 05/09/2018 - 19:36

        "The damage to my car is pretty bad" does not happen without speed. experts could probably work out a rough estimate of speed at impact just by looking at the damage.

  • Austaurean on 05/09/2018 - 09:03

    maybe not speeding etc., but is the addition of the electric motor within the legalities, some states have limits on the power output and also as to how its used, i.e supplementary power only. bike must still be mainly a push bike.
    https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/app/answers/detail/a_i…

    • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 09:56

      This one allowed him to ride without pedals (has a throttle) and power output of 350w, the max in Victoria is 200w where it is then considered a motorbike and not an e-bike i.e he was riding a motorbike in a bike lane.

      • Austaurean on 05/09/2018 - 11:10

        In the ACT, that makes it illegal, as it wont meet requirements for rego.

  • autolux on 05/09/2018 - 10:08
    -7

    if you're traveling at less than 10km, you can't kill someone, unless they're doing something ridiculous. bike lanes aren't yellow brick roads to charlie and the chocolate factory… this clowns at fault, and should have paid for the damage to your car. you got rinsed.

    • kingsville on 05/09/2018 - 10:15
      +3

      Huh?
      The OP failed to give way and moved his car into the path of the cyclist. If the car is moving at 7km/h it takes 1 second for it to move the 2 metre width of the designated bicycle lane.

      • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:15
        +2

        if you're traveling at less than 10km, you can't kill someone,

        Also, I'm pretty sure walls have killed plenty of people - and they sure as heck weren't going anywhere near 10km/h either.

  • picklewizard on 05/09/2018 - 11:02
    +4

    I don't really understand what the question is. Nothing about his bicycle impacts your ability to yield to him, even if illegally modified, but you don't seem to be disputing that.

    I think if you've bought the new bike you've done exactly the right thing!

    • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:15
      -3

      Nothing about his bicycle impacts your ability to yield to him

      The speed the bicycle was going definitely impacts OP's ability to yield to him, seeing as it'd impact OP's ability to see them coming.

      • picklewizard on 05/09/2018 - 15:46
        +1

        No it doesn't. You don't pull out into a lane unless it's clear. Unless the cyclist was moving at the speed of light, how does his speed affect his visibility?

        I know this intersection well - there's no crest (in fact the cyclist would have been on a slight downhill incline). By OP's own admission, he was next to a van which was what impacted visibility - so he pulled out despite not being able to verify if the lane was clear.

        In this instance, the speed may affect the resulting damage caused by, but not the likelihood of, an accident occurring.

  • wolvesaussie on 05/09/2018 - 12:40
    +2

    I don't really see any difference in the circumstances or results between it being a fit guy cycling his road bike at 50 km or an unfit commuter doing 50 km with a help of a motor.

    • Chewiebacca on 05/09/2018 - 13:34

      I hadn't either until I posted this thread, things that come to mind:
      Road bike that can actually reach 50km/h likely better built, having higher spec brakes (disc brakes, not the rubber stoppers on his Vintage Petite womens bike)
      Having a motor that far exceeds (350w, legal max here is 200w) the Victorian laws(and ACT as somebody pointed out to me) for an electric bike, it's legally a motorbike and I'm sure that's something to do with the max speed capable and/or the various other factors.

      You really shouldn't be doing that speed anyway when riding parallel to pretty much the busiest highway and it's very visibly congested, having assistance is in my mind likely to put you in a "cruisey" state when achieving the same speed on an un/lesser assisted bike will likely tax you more.

      • Austaurean on 13/09/2018 - 08:31

        if the bike had of been at a reasonable speed due to the congested slow traffic, i.e. still undertaking but at a safer speed, he may have been able to see the front 1/4 of your front guard poking out of the traffic and been able to avoid the crash.. rather than irresponsibly going to quick, undertaking other vehicles..

        while his modification may well be illegal, meaning he should not have been on the road with it - its almost a mute point as we all know cyclists can get to a very decent speed anyway, it really comes down to the cyclist not proceeding through at a safe and reasonable speed, I am in no way disregarding that the car was in the bike lane with its front 1/4 of it s fender, but still, don't ride in manner that can be dangerous, ride to condition..

    • HighAndDry on 05/09/2018 - 15:17

      Legally there is. Fit guy riding road bike at 50km/h = legal, OP pays out.

      Unfit commuter doing 50km/h on a 350W electric bike = illegal, OP arguably can tell them to take a hike (now that their bike's busted).

      • nith265 on 05/09/2018 - 15:33

        @HighAndDry - Imagine a suburban road and the speed limit is 60kms, a car pulls out of a side road, fails to give way and I crash into them.

        If I’m doing 50kms it’s all their fault and they have to pay for all damages

        If I’m doing 70kms it’s all my fault and I have to pay for all damages

        Is that correct in your opinion?

        • Entropy Sky on 05/09/2018 - 18:50
          +1

          Yes, few months back, a couple of Chinese tourist was doing 100 in 80 zone. Killed a grandma and grandchild, even thou the grandma failed to judge the speeding car(failed to give way), at the end, speeding driver is still at fault.

          In this case, the motorcycle was also illegal, unregistered,unroadworthy, in wrong lane and from the damage done, very likely speeding(motorcycle can only does 30 when filtering).

        • nith265 on 06/09/2018 - 23:20

          @Entropy Sky:

          My "question" to @HighAndDry was more to highlight his (and your) incorrect understanding – a person breaking a road rule does not instantly become 100% liable for the cost of repair in an accident.

          Regardless of the legality of the e-bike, OP still needs to give way

          Both could get tickets, both are probably partially liable for damages

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 00:14

          @nith265:
          i read alot of people say creeping forward broke the rule, therfore at fault.

          But, road rule also said driver can slowly creep forward past stop sign/line to gain visibility when driver's sight is blocked.

        • Euphemistic on 07/09/2018 - 06:34
          +2

          @Entropy Sky: is that really in the rules? Or just a common interpretation that isn’t actually legal? Without going back to look it up I suspect that the rule is simply stop and give way. Sure, many other drivers will slow enough to leave a gap for you to pull out but they don’t need to do so and by crossing the line you are not following the road rules.

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 12:04

          @Entropy Sky:

          It simply doesn’t matter if he crept out, the cyclist had right of way and OP failed to give way.

          Not that police would ever follow up something as minor as this but if they did the facts of the collision speak for them self and they would have no option but to give OP a ticket. If OP took it to court yes a magistrate could take into consideration that he carefully crept forward and they might remove or lower the fine.

          Yes, police could equally choose to persue the cyclist for the potentially illegal motor.

          One person doing something illegal does not cancel out the other person’s illegal action.

          For both road law and civil damages both parties can be considered at fault. The law isn’t a zero sum game where one person has to be exclusively at fault.

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 12:51

          @nith265:
          That is based on op have broke the road rule, which is still arguable.

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 13:00

          @Entropy Sky:

          sorry but the fact that cyclist had right of way, and that OP failed to give way is inarguable

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 13:01

          @nith265:
          He is not a cyclist.

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 13:03
          +1

          @Entropy Sky:

          doesnt matter if he is on a bike, on a horse, driving a truck, on a motorcycle

          The giveway law is the same

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 13:09
          +1

          @nith265:
          It does matter, the illegal motorcycle rider does not even have the right to be on the road.

          Did he pay to use the road?
          Did he got motorcycle licence?
          Did he pay for TAC?
          Did he have any CTP?

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 13:14

          @Entropy Sky:

          If so then they can be given a ticket/charged by the police for that offence

          It doesnt remove OP's need to giveway.

          To repeat my words from above:

          One person doing something illegal does not cancel out the other person’s illegal action.

          It simply means they can both get tickets from police

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 13:18

          @nith265:
          To repeat my words too: It is arguable that OP broke the give way road rule.

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 13:41

          @Entropy Sky:

          An example just to make sure I understand:

          • I pull out into traffic without giving way and another car crashes into me
          • If the other driver has paid their registration I’m at fault
          • If the other driver hasn’t paid their registration the police ignor my driving and he's at fault

          If I missed a bit let me know

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 14:11
          -1

          @nith265:
          That is not a correct example, more like a illegally modified jet powered vehicle with next to zero brake system, unlicenced, very limited knowledge of both the jet and rules,driving on wrong runway

          PS:it also funny instead of dodging the car, the illegal motorcyclist ran straight into it. Target fixation? Bad brake? Speeding? Potential insurance scam(TAC would be losing billions to those follow this tactic)?

        • Euphemistic on 07/09/2018 - 15:04

          @Entropy Sky:

          That is not a correct example, more like a illegally modified jet powered vehicle with next to zero brake system, unlicenced.

          That’s a bit of a stretch. The bike had a reasonably low powered propulsion system. Humans can generate more than 350w, it was travelling at a reasonable bicycle speed and had working brakes, that admittedly aren’t fantastic, but probably need the aus standards. The rider may also be licensed, most cyclists also hold a valid licence.

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 15:17

          @Euphemistic:Going back around again?
          He is not a cyclist.

        • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 16:47

          @Entropy Sky:

          Yes I'm happy to concede that if OP failed to give way to a speeding, unlicensed driver, driving an unregistered, illegally modified, jet powered car with no brakes, the main focus of any police investigation would probably not be into OP's failure to give way …

          As for defending what OP has said actually happened:

          “…your honour, my client is clearly not guilty of failing to give way. The bike ran into him when he had pulled out into it’s path in a bike lane. All you need to do is imagine a jet powered car, with…”

        • Entropy Sky on 07/09/2018 - 17:57

          @nith265:
          It not a bike, it a illegally modified unroadworthy motorbike, rode by an unlicenced, uninsured,ignorant(potential insurance scam) road pirate.

          Funny how you try to make an imaginary example with me, then inserted it into the real situation.
          Next time I imagine a sexy lady,you would have police charge me for sexual assault.
          So, stay on topic, and stop jumping around, taking text out of context.

        • Euphemistic on 07/09/2018 - 20:44
          +1

          @Entropy Sky: might not be a legal bike, but it was doing what a bike would do. You can’t pulll out in front of ‘normal’ traffic, registered or not.

        • Euphemistic on 07/09/2018 - 20:48
          +1

          @Entropy Sky: all we know is the OP thinks it is a 350w model fitted to a legal bicycle. It might actually be legal.

        • nith265 on 08/09/2018 - 13:13

          @Entropy Sky:

          Funny how you try to make an imaginary example with me, then inserted it into the real situation.

          Lol – you introduce a ridiculous analogy (jet powered bike or car) to support a your assertion and complain when I serve it back to you!

          My position: OP broke a road law by failing to give way. Cyclist (or whatever) may also have broken the law with the attached motor. Both parties could be considered partially negligent when assigning civil damages.

          Your apparent position: OP failed to give way but is completely excused from breaking a road law because the cyclist (or whatever) might have broken a law first with the attached motor. Further more, the cyclist (or whatever) was possibly speeding, unlicensed, and probably part of a premeditated TAC insurance scam. Because he broke a road law, OP is also not liable at all for any civil damages.

          Read my other comments, I don’t even completely disagree with you re the civil damages – the cyclist should be paying at least partially for the damage to the car.

          It’s your idea that if you can prove that cyclist (or whatever) has broken a road law, it then means OP is 100% in the clear for breaking his own a road rule and that OP is 100% not liable for damages that is wrong. It simply doesn’t work that way.

  • brendanm on 05/09/2018 - 14:24
    -3

    As far as I can see, the bike was illegal. As it was illegal, it shouldn't have been ridden. If it wasn't being ridden then OP couldn't hit it/be hit by it. Should've just claimed it on insurance op, and told the bike rider to flap off. Do be more careful in future though.

  • nith265 on 05/09/2018 - 15:16
    +4

    There are the road rules (criminal law) and there is liability for damage (civil law).

    While breaking a criminal law can influence the level of liability in a civil cases, just because you break a road law does not mean that you are then automatically then 100% liable for all damage caused – it just means you have to pay the fine for breaking that law. (breaking a road rule is still definitely a bad thing for you if a court was to decide how liable you are)

    Road laws: In this case sounds like you could both be given tickets

    • Him for the over powered motor
    • You for failing to give way.

    Liability:

    • You should have given way – so its somewhat your fault
    • The e-cyclist hit you and effectively caused all the damage. A reasonable person in his situation might have slowed down and anticipated your error – It’s also somewhat his fault

    For my 2 cents it’s maybe maybe 70% your fault, 30% his. Run the percentage figures against your damage bill and his and see who’s in front.

    Sounds like you’ve resolved it all now anyway so good work for keeping things simple.

    • trapper on 11/09/2018 - 17:32
      +1

      It's not any % your fault when you are riding down the road minding your own business and someone suddenly pulls out in front of you causing an accident.

      • nith265 on 11/09/2018 - 23:26
        +1

        I agree morally but thats not true in a legal sense

        All road users have a “duty of care” to each other. We all know that other drivers make mistakes so it is considered that a “reasonable person” would drive/ride in a manner that would anticipate these mistakes from others.

        Any accident where you are the one who collides into someone else could see you considered partially negligent even if the other party broke a road rule or did something stupid

        IF OP can show that the cyclist failed to behave “reasonably” they could be considered partially negligent:

        • Riding at an inappropriate speed for the traffic conditions
        • Having an electric motor without brakes sufficient to stop the bike

        could both easily show that the cyclist contributed to the accident

  • cycleri3 on 05/09/2018 - 21:14

    Just want to say good on you for doing the right thing after the accident. Its shocking that many drivers don't have the decency to even stop after they hit someone.

    I was clipped by a car on Royal Parade just out of the CBD during peak evening traffic and the car just sped off. I was in the bike lane to the left of two lanes of cars - that were stopped due to nose to tail traffic just behind an intersection and to my left was the left turning lane. Just as I was riding next to the car noticed his front wheels turned fully to left while he was stopped and without checking his blindspot (where I was) he drove into my path. Luckily I had managed to get in front of him by the time he turned and his bumper clipped my back wheel taking me off my bike and he drove off. Since then I am super paranoid of cycling in traffic, next time I may not get off so easily.

    • serpserpserp on 05/09/2018 - 21:24

      Surprising they didn't stop if they hit you with the front of their car! To be honest though, riding down royal parade in peak hour is a death trap. Stick to the parks and when you hit Brunswick, up the upfield bike path.

  • serpserpserp on 05/09/2018 - 21:22

    Anyone own one of these things? How easy is it to slow down if you are humming along at top speed? I always thought about getting one but wasn't sure how it all works slowing down? When you engage your breaks does the motor disengage at the same time? Or are you fighting the motor to slow down too?

    • matthewperk on 06/09/2018 - 16:32

      It's exactly like braking on a normal non-motorised bicycle. The motors have a cut off switch that senses when a brake is pulled so they aren't fighting the motor. The biggest penalty over a standard bike is a little bit of weight. But negligible differences really. The bigger determiner of a bikes braking distance would be the types of brakes, the types of tyres and the overall weight of the rider and bike.

    • Baghern on 07/09/2018 - 09:20

      Note, there are no special breaks for electric bikes over normal bikes.

      They legally can't go over 25kmph in Australia.

      Even if they could, they would struggle over 50kmph due to instability.

      Road bikes go well over 50kmph

      As cool as they sound this is partially why electric bikes haven't taken over… and the fact that they take your bike up to and over 20kg… Most people's bikes are 7-13kg

      I'm personally interested in a pedal assist mechanic, that would only add a kilo or two… kinda like the one the Female cyclcist racer had hidden in the frame of her bike

      • Austaurean on 13/09/2018 - 08:42

        im not sure about the 7-13kg thing, maybe for the costlier bikes specially if its 12kg or under, but for the normal adult bike probably more around 18kg, I know my bike is about 18kg and my partners is 20kg, now these are mountain bike 'style' and just a general brand, nothing from a proper bike store.
        I know as ive weighed them as we would like a platform bike rack for our bikes and our 2 kids, they seem to only go to a 60kg weight limit.

        • Euphemistic on 17/09/2018 - 06:59

          Your is not a normal bike at 18kg. That is a very heavy bike. A typical basic mountain bike from a bicycle brand should be under 15kg for a base model.

          Besides, the weight of the bike makes very little difference considering the percentage of the total of bike and rider. Riders vary from 50-150kg. typically a bicycle, even a heavy one is a fair bit less than 20% of the weight of the bike/rider combo.

  • axlfan on 06/09/2018 - 13:35
    +2

    I think you have done good. At the end of the day, it does not matter whose fault it is if a life is lost. Don't need that on our conscience.
    It could be argued that both were at fault but neither intended this to happen or acted rashly. Maybe the cyclist could have tried avoiding you but maybe he tried and could not react fast enough.

    All things said and done, you did the right thing mate. There are terrible people who run over cyclists and escape away without a shred of guilt these days. But you acted fairly and also got him a replacement bike. Good on you and drive safe.

    • nith265 on 07/09/2018 - 11:52

      …but maybe he tried and could not react fast enough.

      You are correct in highlighting this point.

      Despite having right of way, the e-bike hit the car and caused the damage so he is by default at least partially liable for damages. They can reduce/remove their liability by showing that they did everything a "reasonable person" would have done to avoid hitting OP. In a car this could be skid marks.

      You are also correct in praising OP's compassionate response. Personally I think he's been overly generous regarding damages, but there is far too much aggression and selfishness in life and on the roads these days. Good on him for erring the other way.

  • Will Mcdonald on 07/09/2018 - 10:33
    +1

    Looks like your in the wrong and at fault given that he had right away. The bike is illegal 100%, but got nothing to do with you.

    • brendanm on 08/09/2018 - 11:02

      Bike shouldn't be there if illegal. Why doesn't insurance pay out drunk drivers? Because even if not at fault, they should never have been on the road in the first place.

      • nith265 on 08/09/2018 - 13:21

        @brendanm

        What if OP was driving an unregistered vehicle?

        How do you decide when both parties have broken a road law? Do the police just say it's draw no one gets a ticket?

        In deciding who pays damages would a court say sorry, neither of you have a claim of negligence against the other since you’ve both broken a road law?

      • Will Mcdonald on 10/09/2018 - 09:23

        road rules prevail first. Sets the basis for all to follow no matter what their financial situation is.

  • Architectonic on 16/09/2018 - 22:12

    The motor is merely a technicality. You are still at fault and liable, because you pulled out when you did not have clear visability (it was not safe to do so).

    Fact is, that a 350w bike goes about 30-32km/h (no wind, flat surface) without pedaling, and about 36 km/h with 100w of pedaling. These speeds could just have easily been achieved by an athletic cyclist.

    Luckily no one was seriously hurt.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join