ah yes, somehow I have completely missed that part. I thought it was a motorcycle incident. I'd ride with an action cam in the future, like almost all other cyclists out there on the road. If you have evidence the driver slowed down and stopped on double yellow line without indicating, you can (and should) pursuit the driver for all the medical bills and more. Unfortunately without evidence, there's nothing you can do but to settle.
I dunno, I'm not sure it matters if the car slammed on or didn't indicate - IMO (and in the eyes of the law as far as I know) it's the followers responsibility to allow a gap to cater for the unforeseen, whether it's a bike or a car. From what you say, you had your eyes elsewhere, and not on the car in front of you - yes the reason for this is a valid one, but none the less this meant you didn't see the stopped car in time and ran into it. I'd say so long as the driver is being reasonable about it (if he's trying to take you for a ride with the threat of legal action, that's a different matter), then be reasonable back and compensate him/her for repairs.
Yes, keeping a safe distance is very important. But I feel parking on double yellow line is never okay either. If there's evidence the driver intend to park on double yellow, then surely there's a case for OP?
Update: I have agreed on the cash settlement with the driver. What should I get from him (a statement or agreement) to ensure that he doesn't hit me with a lawsuit or insurance claim later? Re: fault The solicitors unfortunately said that unless I can get hold of cctv evidence (virtually impossible), I have no ground to stand on in court
The 10-ish year old that darts around here on his bike apparently has no understanding that there may be a car on the section of road he's about to launch out upon, and it's only a matter of time before he ends up on someone's bonnet. It's a nice idea but I don't see how it's enforceable or even feasible in the first place.
The way it works in some countries is that if you're a cyclist, everybody has to watch out for you, i.e. cyclists are unlikely to face claims if they are involved in a traffic accident. There's also a matter of drivers' ed - my instructor has always reminded me - never stop without making sure there isn't a cyclist about to rear end you, I just never thought I'd be on the other side of the equation!
It raises the issue as to whether cyclists should be allowed on the road altogether. If so, dedicated cyclist lanes.
When it comes to overtaking, the car pulling in has to make sure that there is sufficient space between their car and the car behind. The highway code states that for bikes it must be at least this distance. IMO, if the car pulled in front of you and you went into the back of them after they immediately braked, they didn't leave enough space. But it's hard to judge what happened in a situation just from text.
IMHO if you hit someone that 'just stopped' it's your fault for cycling at a speed that doesn't allow you to stop in time in this situations. You must always cycle (or drive, or walk!) with a safe distance in front of you. If you're too close and those in front stop suddenly then you'll hit them. Sudden stops could be because a kid runs out in front of them, a mechanical failure, a lapse of judgement or sudden traffic stops in front of them. Expect the unexpected. Just because it's 'normal' to travel without a safe stopping distance doesn't mean it's okay to do so. Sorry. But you hit them, it's your fault. Disclaimer: I once (while cycling) flew through the air and landed on the bonnet of a car that decided to emergency break and start to turn into the wrong end of a one-way street. I couldn't stop, and hit them at about 20mph. I was fine. The car I hit was fine. I cracked the frame of my bike but didn't realise it until I crashed a day later when the bike fell apart on me. The driver of the car was a tool and shouldn't have stopped suddenly to make an illegal move. But it was my fault I hit him, I was going too fast and using him to slipstream up a hill. My bad.
The way I see it anyone over 18 using a bike for commuting etc should be made to have insurance and a reg for using a bike on the queens highway the same as everybody else. cyclist hits old lady walking,breaks her leg gives false name and buggers off (example). how's that fair?
Old lady gets hip or leg fixed on NHS, doesn't have to worry about loss of earnings, seems fine to me. Won't anyone think of the children or kitten's
Some of the comments on here are flat out ridiculous. Let me try and put this as succinctly as possible: Some cyclists are arseholes, but that doesn't make all cyclists arseholes; some car drivers are arseholes, but that doesn't make all car drivers arseholes. If I had a penny for every time someone has belted past me on a 50mph road while leaving very little room then I'd be rich (little tip btw: if I can smell your aftershave/perfume/air freshener/cigarette/stinky armpits/etc as you belt past then you're probably too ****ing close; please move the **** over). That **** is seriously dangerous to a cyclist. Several times in the last few months I've nearly been knocked off by the turbulence, and I don't fancy the idea of coming off my bike at ~35mph while wearing little more than a lycra suit and a helmet, thankyouverymuch. Equally if I had a penny for every time I saw cyclist jump a red light then I'd still be rich (little tip btw: if you're on a bike and over 14 you should be on the road and the rules of the road apply to you as well, dickface - you don't get to nip up onto the pavement to dodge a red light, or speed through a red light because "it looks clear"). That **** is seriously dangerous for all involved at crossings and junctions, especially when it involves pedestrian crossings. As for the OP's case, this sounds like a simple accident: a car pulled in front, probably not leaving enough room for OP, and OP didn't see the car stopping because he was looking behind him at that point. There's no need to get all snippy about "cyclists shouldn't be on the road", or "cyclists should have insurance", etc. Both parties are probably at fault in one way or another, and since there's no evidence to definitively prove one way or another then it's usually logical to assume that the one who went into the back of the other is the one at fault. This could have just as easily happened to two car drivers. I'll leave you with something I posted on bookface a while ago, it seems to apply quite neatly to this situation.
since a cyclist is held to the same highway rules as a car or motorbike then in 99% of all cases the vehicle that rear ends is at fault. Odd situation as usually insurance would cover this. I would imagine he would have to take you to small claims court to resolve and you would most likely lose. the only time it may not be is if they are pulling out of a junction etc then that is a car pulling into the lane of on oncoming vehicle. It doesnt matter at all around the reason they braked suddenly as others have said, you MUST leave enough space to safety stop at ALL times.
Ideally you should be paying for the repair and getting the invoice from the garage doing the work as proof. Be very wary about just handing over cash. I don't know why we don't move towards insuring a person in this country rather than a specific car/house etc.
The short answer is risk, and all insurance is based on risk. Take home insurance: you're more likely to drop your phone down the toilet than you are to suffer subsidence damage. That's why accidental damage cover costs more: the cost of a subsidence claim will far far outweigh the cost of an accidental damage claim, but there are far far more claims for accidental damage than there are for subsidence. I can't even imagine how you would calculate one combined insurance premium/policy for home, motor, cycling, personal belongings, etc...
