Mint 5 week old S3....no longer mint.... :(

[thebluefox]

So this morning a cyclist rode into the back of me after a bus pulled out in front of me and I had to stop.

To say I'm gutted would be an understatement.

 

[paulk]

Gutted mate
I had a head on with a chicken 3 days into ownership hence the rs3 grill

 

[slayaz]

So this morning a cyclist rode into the back of me after a bus pulled out in front of me and I had to stop.

To say I'm gutted would be an understatement.

View attachment 72653 View attachment 72654

Sorry to hear about that / see that. I guess that has to be an insurance job?

 

[billyali86]

What happens in that situation, who covers the repair?

 

[thebluefox]

What happens in that situation, who covers the repair?

I've posted a topic in the insurance section - it seems unless I want to pursue him legally for damages then it's either;

a) I pay and then hope he helps out with all/some of the cost. New boot lid isn't going to be cheap though.
b) I go through my insurance and risk losing 5 years NCB

 

[billyali86]

Hope the cyclist was willing to foot some of the the bill?

 

[Tej13]

I am no insurance expert, but sometimes these type of accidents can be covered if he/she has a comprehensive home contents policy.

worth checking...

 

[illingworth22]

Gutted for you!

 

[G-S3]

Don't you have your NCB protected then? Insurance will still increase even if you do.

I'd try and get the cyclist to cover the costs some how. Might be worth discussing with your insurer and seeing what they say.

 

[NHN]

That's crappy, you should of called the cops tbh in situations like this, so then the cyclist has to take responsibility & hand over there details properly, they're clearly responsible & there should be a cyclist insurance that covers these types of issues, as drivers who are at fault towards cyclists get screwed, why cant we reciprocate when they're clearly the person to blame.

That wont need bootlid, that will be rubbed back, pulled out/filled, its not too bad tbh, only issue is it will need blending of course maybe to the rear wings & roof, as it will go from the boot swage line upwards.

 

[Ignition1]

Gutted mate
I had a head on with a chicken 3 days into ownership hence the rs3 grill

Is it bad I found this funny?

 

[paulk]

Is it bad I found this funny?

yes

lol

 

[Simon L]

Is it bad I found this funny?

Yep, I'm afraid I had a good chuckle too, sorry Paul!! lol

@thebluefox.............hope you get this sorted and it doesn't put you out of pocket too much

 

[thebluefox]

That's crappy, you should of called the cops tbh in situations like this, so then the cyclist has to take responsibility & hand over there details properly, they're clearly responsible & there should be a cyclist insurance that covers these types of issues, as drivers who are at fault towards cyclists get screwed, why cant we reciprocate when they're clearly the person to blame.

That wont need bootlid, that will be rubbed back, pulled out/filled, its not too bad tbh, only issue is it will need blending of course maybe to the rear wings & roof, as it will go from the boot swage line upwards.

Yeh the more I think about it the more I'm kicking myself that I didn't call the police and have it handled that way

 

[Ignition1]

yes

lol

lol. Though the RS3 grill will result in smaller chicken pieces if it happens again. Or it won't let as much chicken get inside at least.

 

[Simon Pearce]

Agree on the home insurance bit, fairly sure they may be covered there. Failing that speak to the CAB and see if they can offer any advice. I don't doubt for a second if it were the other way round he/she would be expecting you to cough up or claim on your insurance!!!

 

[Rob2k68]

Sorry to see this - hope you get it sorted soon!

 

[gbernard]

Is it bad I found this funny?

Did this happen in the drive through at KFC ?

for the record, I too found it hilarious, ran into a rooster !!!!!, collided with a **** !!!!!, pranged into a pullet !!!!!, flattened by a fowl !!!!!!

 

[thebluefox]

Cheers for the replies, advice, and sympathies everyone, much appreciated. Spoke to the chap tonight and he's assured me we'll be able to work something out, so I'm going to persevere with that until needed otherwise.

Audi have come back at £1440 inc VAT, which is repairing the boot lid, bumper and a replacement splitter.

Anyone know of any decent carbon splitters? Might use it as an excuse to start getting some carbon goodies on the car...

lol. Though the RS3 grill will result in smaller chicken pieces if it happens again. Or it won't let as much chicken get inside at least.

Surely it'll make perfect chicken nugget sized pieces, right....?

 

[mfl]

So sorry to hear about it , too often I get tailed by cyclists in traffic doing 50km/h wondering how they will stop if I need to suddenly. ......

As for the chicken and nugget size pieces ..still laughing sorry

 

[Ignition1]

Surely it'll make perfect chicken nugget sized pieces, right....?

****** as well if it gets inside! Could sell them as...Audi Nuggets? Chicken NuggetS3? 4 Chicken Rings?

Dragons Den here I come.

Staying on topic - glad it's sorted nearly. Are you saying if you gave Audi some after market parts they'd fit them for you?

 

[jetron]

Sorry to hear of your accident. As I am also a cyclist, I would expect to be held liable in such circumstances. As a member of British Cycling, I get £10M worth of third party liability insurance included in membership. I also get 10% discount at Halfords and Chain Reaction Cycles which means that membership pays for itself many times over every year. If you are a cyclist, it's a bit of a no-brainer!

 

[Jassyo06]

Yeah feel you're anguish over this incident
Hope all goes well with the repair

 

[Beluga S line]

Was the cyclists OK?

A car can be repaired!

 

[thebluefox]

Was the cyclists OK?

A car can be repaired!

Cyclist was fine - it goes without saying that I checked how he was before I checked the car.

I've spoken to him twice since, says he's sore and stiff but we both agreed it could have been much much worse.

 

[S32B]

Hmmm cyclist are a pet hate of mine, does my head in when the lights are on red and they bounce up on the pavement, go around the corner, then bounce back down onto the road and continue! If they want equal rights on roads they should follow the rules we all follow and have some sort of insurance to cover events such as the OP has mentioned.

Hope you get it sorted mate. Have a read of this, it may help and touches on what others have said http://www.balgores.com/what-are-my-rights-if-a-cyclist-damages-my-car/

 

[billyali86]

Hmmm cyclist are a pet hate of mine, does my head in when the lights are on red and they bounce up on the pavement, go around the corner, then bounce back down onto the road and continue! If they want equal rights on roads they should follow the rules we all follow and have some sort of insurance to cover events such as the OP has mentioned.

Hope you get it sorted mate. Have a read of this, it may help and touches on what others have said http://www.balgores.com/what-are-my-rights-if-a-cyclist-damages-my-car/

Agreed! I hate when they do this, if you are going use the roads, use them like everybody else and follow the rules fully

 

[Eigdoog]

You have both not been in Cambridge then! They don't go on the pavement to go round lights they just keep going on the road! Cutting you up everywhere and you are in the wrong. No lights... ever. Going down one way street! I wish they would ban the pushbike! I best stop now.

 

[thebluefox]

Haha, the ironic thing is I put up a Facebook post bitching about cyclists that fly through red lights and across pedestrian crossings. Part of me wonders whether this is karma!!

So Audi have quoted £1440 inc VAT as I said above, Nationwide have quoted £378. Not sure how that works....?

 

[Jassyo06]

Haha, the ironic thing is I put up a Facebook post bitching about cyclists that fly through red lights and across pedestrian crossings. Part of me wonders whether this is karma!!

So Audi have quoted £1440 inc VAT as I said above, Nationwide have quoted £378. Not sure how that works....?

That's Mental...that price difference...Who do Audi Body shops think they are???
Eh No Brainer....
For a Example my ST3 l Had to get a new wing mirror housing,repaired front wing/side of front bumper,Brand new 18" Alloy wheel fitted.."Ford didnt release the paint code for them"..New front tyre, the Bill was just over £1100...from a Approved Porsche/Bentley...Body shop.
2 digits is what i would give to "Vors Sprung rip you off Technic" Bodyshop

Eh Fudbook as l call it,can be dangerous...lol

 

[Stevier88]

That's Mental...that price difference...Who do Audi Body shops think they are???
Eh No Brainer....
For a Example my ST3 l Had to get a new wing mirror housing,repaired front wing/side of front bumper,Brand new 18" Alloy wheel fitted.."Ford didnt release the paint code for them"..New front tyre, the Bill was just over £1100...from a Approved Porsche/Bentley...Body shop.
2 digits is what i would give to "Vors Sprung rip you off Technic" Bodyshop

Eh Fudbook as l call it,can be dangerous...lol

Most likely their labour rates, I had my door and rear quarter panel replaced after hitting a dog in my a5....£2500!!

Asked for a break down of the costs and seen a whopping £96 an hour for labour it's no wonder the price starts to creep up with those rates.

 

[thebluefox]

Audi have also quoted for a whole new splitter at just shy of £300 as they said it couldn't be repaired.

Other bodyshops don't have a problem with sorting it at all.

 

[woollyjoe]

Too much cyclist hating going on IMO....

If you performed an emergency brake (or braked much harder than expected as reasonable) because of the bus, then the legal responsibility is actually the bus, not the cyclist. Proving it is the issue and this is where dashcams come into their own.

The cyclist cannot react as quick as a car (rubber on the road), and the responsibility is on the driver to check their mirrors and act accordingly on the road. Same for the bus, despite HIghway Code changes, busses need to be let out and the same rule applies to the bus as with you and cyclist. I.e. the bus left you no time to check your mirrors and safely stop.

If the conditions were "reasonable and fair", and the cyclist just didn't pay attention, then that is clearly their fault, but it does not sound that way.

It is bad in London, where the buses and cyclists behave terribly. The Buses hate everyone on the road and I'm sure a few suffering from road rage. It is great to see cyclists on the road, but they take chances that create a lot of danger for others. It has nothing to do with jumping red lights - many countries allow cars and cyclists to turn right (driving on RHS) if safe to do so. It is less about rule bureaucracy and common sense and I feel it's just chaos on roads as many new cyclists lack experience.

Ultimately (and I speak from a London perspective)...

Buses need to accept they will always be giving way and earn respect on the road rather than bullying
Cars need to spend more time looking and leave more space than normal
Cyclists need to accept they cannot ride as fast as they would like and patience is required with fellow cyclists as well as other road users
We all need to change our attitude that the road is for sharing.

 

[woollyjoe]

If it helps - a long time before cyclists were a common sight on London streets, a Peugeot decided to change lanes and pull out right in front of me and then emergency brake. I reacted but after my front wheel hit her bumper and the bike (and myself) rotated upwards the STI lever on my bike cut through her boot like it was tin foil. She reacted by assaulting me on the floor. So on both regards, the Audi held up and you did care first for the cyclist.

 

[thebluefox]

I wouldn't actually say I braked excessively, and my first concern was obviously the cyclist.

However I don't fully buy that the cyclist was not at fault. A number of years ago I was involved in an accident where a dog ran out in front of the car in front of me; the car in front stopped but (having no ABS on an icy road) I locked my wheels and slid into the back of her. That was absolutely my fault as I wasn't driving to the road conditions, and as such I held my hands up and took it on the chin.

The same applies in this case. I was travelling in one constant direction, and reacted to an event that happened in front of me. If the cyclist requires a certain amount of distance to come to safe stop, then they should allow for that distance when travelling behind a vehicle.

 

[WetFishDB]

Too much cyclist hating going on IMO....

If you performed an emergency brake (or braked much harder than expected as reasonable) because of the bus, then the legal responsibility is actually the bus, not the cyclist. Proving it is the issue and this is where dashcams come into their own.

The cyclist cannot react as quick as a car (rubber on the road), and the responsibility is on the driver to check their mirrors and act accordingly on the road. Same for the bus, despite HIghway Code changes, busses need to be let out and the same rule applies to the bus as with you and cyclist. I.e. the bus left you no time to check your mirrors and safely stop.

Say what? yes the Bus pulled out in front of the Audi causing him to have to stop quickly - but any vehicle, motor or otherwise, should observe the necessary stopping distance. The cyclist failed to do so, and therefore is liable.

 

[woollyjoe]

I'm afraid it (being the highway code) doesn't work that way. if the car applied brakes more than normally required to bring his car to stop "safely" because of another road user then in the case of the bus driver, it would be their fault, not the cyclist. If drivers and cyclists operated like everyone could emergency brake at any time, the roads would be empty. By all accounts, in built up areas (30mph) every road user should be 23metres from the next road user - when was the last time you did that, never mind seeing it?

I am not arguing who was at fault - I presented the options. I never said the driver or cyclist was at fault, but there is misinformation and misunderstanding of the highway code going on.

If a cyclist had to slow down to grow their safe braking distance based upon a car applying excessive braking; for every car that overtook them, the cyclist would have to be constantly braking and this is nonsense. The idea of the highway code is common sense.

Rear ending someone is normally the fault of the rear driver unless the car breaking did so unsafely. In the example provided with a dog, it would be the owner of the dog who is liable ultimately, assuming all other conditions did not play a part. Who pays out is usually based upon likely outcome in court which is heavily based upon cost Vs evidence, hence a dashcam is one of the only ways you will succeed in those situations - even with witnesses it can be seen as subjective.

You also have issues of contributory negligence, and this again is more complicated,but it doesn't change the fact that IF the bus pulled out unsafely causing the cars behind to brake "unsafely", then the bus is still at fault. Stopping distance only then affects contributory factors, so the bus is responsible but damage was worse because of the stopping distance or speed of the driver was not adhered to.

Again - these are hypothetical situations, no arguing necessary for this specific situation as I wasn't there. As a cyclist and driver, it is not black and white as stopping distances.

 

[WetFishDB]

I'm afraid it (being the highway code) doesn't work that way. if the car applied brakes more than normally required to bring his car to stop "safely" because of another road user then in the case of the bus driver, it would be their fault, not the cyclist. If drivers and cyclists operated like everyone could emergency brake at any time, the roads would be empty. By all accounts, in built up areas (30mph) every road user should be 23metres from the next road user - when was the last time you did that, never mind seeing it?

I am not arguing who was at fault - I presented the options. I never said the driver or cyclist was at fault, but there is misinformation and misunderstanding of the highway code going on.

If a cyclist had to slow down to grow their safe braking distance based upon a car applying excessive braking; for every car that overtook them, the cyclist would have to be constantly braking and this is nonsense. The idea of the highway code is common sense.

Rear ending someone is normally the fault of the rear driver unless the car breaking did so unsafely. In the example provided with a dog, it would be the owner of the dog who is liable ultimately, assuming all other conditions did not play a part. Who pays out is usually based upon likely outcome in court which is heavily based upon cost Vs evidence, hence a dashcam is one of the only ways you will succeed in those situations - even with witnesses it can be seen as subjective.

You also have issues of contributory negligence, and this again is more complicated,but it doesn't change the fact that IF the bus pulled out unsafely causing the cars behind to brake "unsafely", then the bus is still at fault. Stopping distance only then affects contributory factors, so the bus is responsible but damage was worse because of the stopping distance or speed of the driver was not adhered to.

Again - these are hypothetical situations, no arguing necessary for this specific situation as I wasn't there. As a cyclist and driver, it is not black and white as stopping distances.

How do you define stopping "unsafely". An emergency stop is still safe.

I'm sorry, not arguing for the sake of it, but you seem to be implying that because people don't follow the highway code and apply the correct breaking distance that it somehow would be invalidated because it's not common sense? People should use the appropriate breaking distance, and don't, and therefore risk being liable (as their action is negligent). It's a risk that I, and most other drives assess (and accept) if driving less than that.

If there person behind doesn't have that required distance it would be hard for them to argue that they weren't liable as the stop would have been safe had they been observing the relevant rules of the road. As would the driver of the bus who failed to pull out safely. Comparative negligence is what would determine the degree of liability between the two.

Contributory negligence would apply if, for example the car in front had broken brake lights etc. That doesn't even remotely factor in here.

I agree a cyclist can't constantly slow down when overtaken, but actually I would argue the differential in speed means that the required net stopping distance wouldn't require them to. If the stopping distance for a bicycle at 30mph is X, and a car travelling at Ymph (to overtake safely) is Z, then the necessary distance is Z-X. I'd be amazed if that was a negative value, thus amazed if the cyclist needed to constantly stop.

 

[woollyjoe]

An emergency stop by definition is not safe. It is a last resort executed as such and as an example - if you were to do this without cause, you could be pulled for dangerous driving.

It is impractical in congested areas to observe braking distances because it is stop start. It is also advised on purpose by the Highway Code "reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow". So please do not rely on stopping distances.

It is especially hard to observe this as a cyclist since cars drive around you constantly and this is what i mean by applying common sense. Regardless, stopping distances do not indicate fault.

The highway code states this as simple as it can cyclist should "not ride close behind another vehicle" so this is what is offered as stopping distance for cyclists.

You do not have a correct understanding of the law when it comes to contributory negligence. I don't mean to cause offence but like i originally said it is complicated and whilst no brake lights is contributory, so is an emergency braking situation. Apportioning blame is complicated and ultimately a negotiation between insurance companies based upon ability to prove and the risk.

I don't think you have cycled in built up areas as it is the cyclist who go faster than cars but cars constantly overtake then have to brake. Yes the cyclists don't always observe the rules, but that is a huge generalisation. Drivers are just as guilty.

In short, the bus should not pull out causing any other road user to take action that is not safe - what ultimately defines this is case law in this country.

In short, if the bus caused the OP to take evasive action that put other road users at risk, the bus is liable and it is the ability of proving that, which is the issue. If the cyclist just went into back of car, then that's obvious, but then why mention the bus.

 

[WetFishDB]

An emergency stop by definition is not safe. It is a last resort executed as such and as an example - if you were to do this without cause, you could be pulled for dangerous driving.

It is impractical in congested areas to observe braking distances because it is stop start. It is also advised on purpose by the Highway Code "reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow". So please do not rely on stopping distances.

It is especially hard to observe this as a cyclist since cars drive around you constantly and this is what i mean by applying common sense. Regardless, stopping distances do not indicate fault.

The highway code states this as simple as it can cyclist should "not ride close behind another vehicle" so this is what is offered as stopping distance for cyclists.

You do not have a correct understanding of the law when it comes to contributory negligence. I don't mean to cause offence but like i originally said it is complicated and whilst no brake lights is contributory, so is an emergency braking situation. Apportioning blame is complicated and ultimately a negotiation between insurance companies based upon ability to prove and the risk.

I don't think you have cycled in built up areas as it is the cyclist who go faster than cars but cars constantly overtake then have to brake. Yes the cyclists don't always observe the rules, but that is a huge generalisation. Drivers are just as guilty.

In short, the bus should not pull out causing any other road user to take action that is not safe - what ultimately defines this is case law in this country.

In short, if the bus caused the OP to take evasive action that put other road users at risk, the bus is liable and it is the ability of proving that, which is the issue. If the cyclist just went into back of car, then that's obvious, but then why mention the bus.

Whilst some of your references are obviously valid - such as reducing the distance to maintain flow etc, I disagree with your understanding of contributory negligence. That applies in the scenario where the OP has somehow contributed to the accident - at face value, that isn't apparent. An emergency stop is not negligence when a vehicle pulls out in front of you, not sure where there is case law that precedents this? Comparative negligence is what would be determined between the courts or more likely insurance companies - where they attempt to apportion the blame. The OP doesn't say enough about whether the bus' manoeuvre was unsafe, just that it "pulled out in front of him" and he "had to stop". It doesn't indicate it was even an emergency stop - actually a second post indicates that it probably wasn't.

If the bus driver failed to check mirrors etc and contributed to the accident then that was negligent. Similarly, if the cyclist was following too close to properly stop in time (given their speed, as you said cyclists often do go faster than cars in built up areas), they were also negligent. Comparative negligence would need to be determined between the insurance companies etc. However, iIf the OP had overtaken the cyclist and then slammed on brakes that would no longer be the case as it would be contributory negligence on the act by the OP, by virtue of an unsafe manoeuvre, but it doesn't sound like that is the case at all. Given the OP says the cyclist is saying they are going to "sort something out" it sounds like the cyclist believes they have been negligent - otherwise they wouldn't be offering financial assistance.

Unfortunately neither camp (motorists or cyclists) are exempt from idiots. Thankfully this cyclist seems to be doing the decent thing. Fingers crossed for you OP.