Sorry to hear about that / see that. I guess that has to be an insurance job?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
What happens in that situation, who covers the repair?
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?
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.
yes
lol
Is it bad I found this funny?
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....?
Was the cyclists OK?
A car can be repaired!
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/
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....?
Most likely their labour rates, I had my door and rear quarter panel replaced after hitting a dog in my a5....£2500!!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
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.
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.
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.