Hey guy's sorry to hijack, but my friend today was driving his friend's car drunk today, and crashed into a Liquor store, and destroyed a bunch of vodka. dOES HE HAVE TO PAY FOR THE Vodka? Or does his friend have to? Also his other friend was in the store and was injured by the crash, is he able to sue his friend too?

^
:fulloffuck:

Cyclists do not give an ounce of fuck about cars and nearly every cyclist I know personally has such a bad attitude towards drivers. I witness cyclists ALL THE TIME act like complete assholes to drives, and I love riding my bike!!!

JFC you must be bored

We all witness cyclists being assholes, and we all witness motorists being assholes. Assholes are assholes, whether they are in a car or on a bike. Just don't be an asshole.

I enjoy seeing "asshole cyclist's" getting owned a lot more though, as opposed to the motorists.

OP stated cyclist was on the sidewalk. Which means he was supposed to dismount his bike and walk it across the road. Failure to do so is his own fault.

I see shit like this all day long, cyclists switching from being a part of vehicle traffic, to acting as foot traffic when they feel it is convenient for them. Frankly it's fucking dangerous, confusing to drivers, and downright deadly.

OP wasn't there...

Neither was I though, so we don't know for sure.

Cyclists get away with more because they have no license plate and don't have to pay insurance!

had to re read the orginal post 3 times to understand, that english.

Same thing with pedestrians! They run across the streets all the time, those bastards! We should ban them from walking near streets - everything belongs to cars.

ok so in summary,

OP needs to emphasize the location of damage and the fact that the cyclist was riding on sidewalk instead of bike lane on the road.

The only evidence OP has is the damage of the car.
It really is going to be OP's word vs cyclist's word...you can't prove that the cyclist was on the sidewalk.
You should still let ICBC know that she was on sidewalk though, because they cyclist might just admit it.

Fucking this. I always see cyclists rapidly switching from being a "motorist" to a "pedestrian" and often doing something illegal in the transition. I never had such a strong dislike for cyclists until I moved to Vancouver.

It's not hard. If the vehicle and cyclist are both on the road then they will be almost parallel to each other at the time of the accident since the car will just be starting his turn. The damage would be long scrapes/marks along the side.

If the cyclist was on the sidewalk, then the car will be getting close to the end of the turn and will be closer to a 90 degree angle with reference to the cyclist. The damage to the car will be in a smaller area (like a dent in the side).

And since the OP wasn't there maybe the accident didn't happen at all eh?

If the OP states something as a fact, you cannot just barge in here and start saying something other than that.

Cyclists ride on the sidewalk all the time, and the cyclists who do so, are often the less experienced ones who do not like to ride on the road, and therefore are the ones who often do the dumbest things...

No, that's a good point, and I accept it. It is possible that this rider was on the sidewalk and crashed into the car as it turned.

The driver still needs to shoulder check though, and if she would have, the accident still would have been avoided. The point still remains that you don't just blindly turn without shoulder checking.

When driving, you have to be responsible for what you do, regardless of whether people are on bikes, skates, or walking. You don't just plow through people and go "damn cyclists they are such assholes!" It doesn't matter if they are assholes - like I said, anyone can be an asshole. What matters is that you're in a car and they are not, so you have to take care not to run people over.

I agree 100% nothing absolves a driver of the responsibility to shoulder check, and from what I understand both parties here share a portion of the blame.