[pb.kidz]

Tldr: at intersection making a right turn at a green light, as my friend makes the turn a cyclist on sidewalks runs into the side my friends car and first she was nice about it then she started saying shit hurt when her told her to. She's going to claim it, there's no witnesses. Chances of winning ?

She ran into the passenger side door of buddy's car

[nsx042003]

no chance...

cyclist being on the sidewalk or not, your friend didn't see the bike and proceeded to make the turn.

[cho]

"friend"

[Qmx323]

Wait, the BIKE hit the car on the side?

That means the car was basically done the turn, and the cyclist proceeded to go INTO a car.

You gotta clarify where the damage on the car is dude, if its on the front bumper or the front side, you buddy is screwed.

If its on the door or behind that means the cyclist hit the car, not the other way around. Since the bike proceeds at a much slower pace, the cyclist should have been able to see and react.

Cyclists also have the obligation to be aware of their surroundings, unfortunately most people aren't very self aware.

Totally depends on if the car side swept the bike.

Best of luck to your friend.

[pb.kidz]

The cyclist hit him... She hit the passenger side door.

Wait, the BIKE hit the car on the side?

That means the car was basically done the turn, and the cyclist proceeded to go INTO a car.

You gotta clarify where the damage on the car is dude, if its on the front bumper or the front side, you buddy is screwed.

If its on the door or behind that means the cyclist hit the car, not the other way around. Since the bike proceeds at a much slower pace, the cyclist should have been able to see and react.

Cyclists also have the obligation to be aware of their surroundings, unfortunately most people aren't very self aware.

Best of luck to your friend.

[Klobbersaurus]

i would say the cyclist is at fault because he was riding on the sidewalk and not on the street where he was supposed to be

was the cyclist a hipster?

[Qmx323]

The cyclist hit him... She hit the passenger side door.

If she does indeed claim, make sure your friend emphasizes where the damage is.

Damages from sideswipes and full on cyclist smash look different.

Whoever the authorities are (does ICBC handle Vehicle vs. Cyclist?) should be able to determine from the damage patterns.

[E-SPEC]

What shitty details you just gave.

[snails]

Brother was hit by a car while on a bike, nothing happened cuz he was riding on a sidewalk not the street when he was crossing

[trollguy]

i would say the cyclist is at fault because he was riding on the sidewalk and not on the street where he was supposed to be

was the cyclist a hipster?

i hope bcrdukes is okay.

[meme405]

"friend"

These infamous "Friends". :fuckthatshit:

[MeowMeow]

Similar situation.
Mine came 50/50

[saiko]

i hope bcrdukes is okay.
#nailedit

[Teknique]

I was in a slightly similar situation last year. A young lady riding one of those electric pedal bikes attempted to make a lane change and basically rammed into my right front wheel.

I was fortunate to have someone behind us with a dash cam who caught it on footage. She claimed to be poor and could not afford to pay to repair my car (her exact words were "can't you just pay for it? You look rich"

She was ok, but her foot was a little swollen from being pinched between her bike and the car. I called ICBC to report it, but I was informed that because she was on this electric bike thing, it was not an ICBC insured vehicle, and she has no insurance that I could claim against. If I were to file a claim, it would have to be as a single vehicle accident and pay my deductible.

After getting some quotations and obtaining the footage from the witness, her uncle offered to pay for the refinishing of my rim and I signed a waiver of her liability. Really left a bad taste in my mouth that someone can share the road with cars but not be insured against damages they can cause, I would hate to have to go to small claims court for this.

In your buddy's case, I get that the bike lady is going to claim against you, but in terms of the damage to the car caused by the bike, you would have to go after them outside of ICBC, at least, in my experience.

[Truenosan]

Similar situation.
Mine came 50/50

Same here. I was on my bike, and stopped at an intersection. Driver had a stop sign, and was fully stopped. I start to go, he creeps out, and next thing you know, my foot is trapped between his front bumper and my bike. ICBC ruled it 50/50.

[MeowMeow]

Mine was more so I was creeping out at a stop sign to turn right,
Cyclist was on sidewalk perpendicular to my direction, going opposite direction of the traffic, no helmet, had her ipod (which are all illegal according to Richmond bylaw)
I had those tall tree/bushy fences so didn't see her coming, she rammed into me

[bcrdukes]

i hope bcrdukes is okay.

I wasn't at first, but after a sip of that Godly shot of espresso carefully prepared at Tigers Drink House on their Nuova Simonelli, I felt so much better.

I will update this thread later with a sonnet regarding this tragic accident.

[meme405]

I wasn't at first, but after a sip of that Godly shot of espresso carefully prepared at Tigers Drink House on their Nuova Simonelli, I felt so much better.

I will update this thread later with a sonnet regarding this tragic accident.

Heyyy I have a Simonelli espresso machine. I have a red Oscar model, fuck is it ever the best money I spent...

[heisenberg]

arent cyclist suppose to walk their bikes across the cross walks? unless the cross walk says they're allowed to bike across it like at rupert skytrain station.

[mk1freak]

sub'd for sonnet :fuckyea:

[Hondaracer]

Cyclists shouldn't be able to claim shit like this if they aren't insured themselves.

Why the fuck does my dirt bike need 3rd party liability on a remote logging road yet a cyclist doesn't? What a joke

[Amuse]

Supposed to shoulder check on right turns for pedestrians and cyclists.

[Louhasnocash]

The MVA states that cyclists must follow the same traffic rules as the cars. That means if they want to turn left they have to go on the left turn lane. If they get on the sidewalk or use the crosswalk and hit a car. They are 100% at fault.
I speak from experience, as a cyclist hit me like that last year. He first started by giving me threats saying he broke a joint and sprained an ankle or something. He called ICBC and told his story, and I called and told mine. He got ruled 100% at fault. But I have to pay my detuctible to repair the $2200 damage on my doors and a broken window. I called him a bunch of times after but no response.
So if they hit you like that, do your research. He is suppose to be 100% at fault. ICBC does not treat cyclists any different than cars. Draw a picture of what happened and tell your story watching it. I am almost certain that ICBC will rule him 100% at fault. But you will have to pay the detuctible anyhow.
Good luck!

[MeowMeow]

The MVA states that cyclists must follow the same traffic rules as the cars. That means if they want to turn left they have to go on the left turn lane. If they get on the sidewalk or use the crosswalk and hit a car. They are 100% at fault.
I speak from experience, as a cyclist hit me like that last year. He first started by giving me threats saying he broke a joint and sprained an ankle or something. He called ICBC and told his story, and I called and told mine. He got ruled 100% at fault. But I have to pay my detuctible to repair the $2200 damage on my doors and a broken window. I called him a bunch of times after but no response.
So if they hit you like that, do your research. He is suppose to be 100% at fault. ICBC does not treat cyclists any different than cars. Draw a picture of what happened and tell your story watching it. I am almost certain that ICBC will rule him 100% at fault. But you will have to pay the detuctible anyhow.
Good luck!

Well I guess you got lucky or I was unlucky
Like your incident, mine was on the sidewalk, opposite direction, and was crossing.
Municipal law states for you to cross with a bike you can't be on it . She was going opposite direction of traffic flow so that's against mva. There were all sorts of other stuff Cyclist wasdoing wwrong
I listed out Richmond municipal law and mva to the adjuster. He still ruled it 50/50 simply because I had a stop sign and I was crawling out despite the fact I hate limited visibility
I should have fought back but whatever.

[SkinnyPupp]

Wait, the BIKE hit the car on the side?

That means the car was basically done the turn, and the cyclist proceeded to go INTO a car.
Not necessarily. It's more likely that the driver didn't shoulder check, and just blindly turned right, cutting off the cyclist who was riding on the side of the road going straight.

The way I see it, this "friend" most likely caused the accident, and it will be tough for her to "win" the case.

SHOULDER CHECK PEOPLE. Fucking hell.. Green doesn't mean "just go blindly"

[E-SPEC]

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?

[dared3vil0]

^
:fulloffuck:

[multicartual]

Green doesn't mean "just go blindly"


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!!!

[pb.kidz]

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?

JFC you must be bored

[SkinnyPupp]

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!!!
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.

[E-SPEC]

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

[meme405]

cutting off the cyclist who was riding on the side of the road going straight.


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.

[SkinnyPupp]

OP stated cyclist was on the sidewalk.

OP wasn't there...

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

[multicartual]

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.


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

[zilley]

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

[SkinnyPupp]

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

[Timpo]

Wait, the BIKE hit the car on the side?

That means the car was basically done the turn, and the cyclist proceeded to go INTO a car.

You gotta clarify where the damage on the car is dude, if its on the front bumper or the front side, you buddy is screwed.

If its on the door or behind that means the cyclist hit the car, not the other way around. Since the bike proceeds at a much slower pace, the cyclist should have been able to see and react.

Cyclists also have the obligation to be aware of their surroundings, unfortunately most people aren't very self aware.

Totally depends on if the car side swept the bike.

Best of luck to your friend.
If she does indeed claim, make sure your friend emphasizes where the damage is.

Damages from sideswipes and full on cyclist smash look different.

Whoever the authorities are (does ICBC handle Vehicle vs. Cyclist?) should be able to determine from the damage patterns.
i would say the cyclist is at fault because he was riding on the sidewalk and not on the street where he was supposed to be

was the cyclist a hipster?
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.
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.

[dangonay]

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.

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.

[dangonay]

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.

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).

[meme405]

OP wasn't there...

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...

[SkinnyPupp]

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.

[meme405]

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.