Cyclist left unconscious after driver mounted kerb and hit him, breaking his bike in two, in alleged hit-and-run

It really is one of the worst BSOs imaginable, when looking at the face of the tube where it has broken off the hinge there is very little bright metal visible which suggests that corrosion had weakened the joint, this could either have caused spontaneous collapse or meant that the slightest of nudges from a car would have done this catastrophic damage without damaging any other parts. Frightening that this was sold with MTB tyres and gears suggesting that it was intended for use off road!

Valid statements I suspect we might know more once CCTV is gathered. I would argue on the amount of damage though. When I was taken out by a car in a collision, the only damage (not noticable at the time) was a bent QR skewer. It depends on the how the collision happens. 

I agree. Got taken out by a car cutting a t junction that I was waiting at. I bore the brunt of the collision - bike just had some ripped bar tape and the left shifter got moved a bit. No other damage.

Dreadful looking BSO. Though it has got pedal reflectors, so at least the frothing gammonati will be appeased & now have no complaint about the cyclist not being visible 😜

NoOneSpecial wrote:

I do apologise for my opinion.

Don't be afraid to have an opinion.

depends on the opinion.. if the mods don't like it, bah, bye.

NoOneSpecial wrote:

First and formost I want to apologise first if I am wrong here, but something does not seem right to me on this one........

So, we have cheap BSO folding bike that has snapped cleanly at the hinge and no obvious damage to the rest of said 'bike'. In my opinion, a collision with a car would have caused a lot more damage.

Cheap LED lights which I assume are either running on 2032 batteries or are rechargable, would not be seen easily and would not light up the road ahead.

Riding on the pavement, erm, isn't that against the Highway Code?

I have seen cheapo folding 'bikes' fail like this before, many times, possibly a kerb impact?

Again, I could be wrong, but something just does not add up here.

But what do I know........

I do apologise for my opinion.

It's difficult to judge if damage to a bike was caused by a car impact or not as they can vary so much. If the bumper pushes the bike away, then there can be no visible damage, but if the car goes over it, then it would look different to the bike pic shown. Very much depends on the specifics of the hit.

I don't see the relevance of what the cyclist was doing as the driver shouldn't have been on the pavement at all, so visibility of the cyclist doesn't matter. Lighting up the road ahead isn't relevant to being hit by a car and often isn't necessary if there's street lighting (and not too many potholes).

Riding on a pavement is often what cautious cyclists do if they feel that the road traffic is too dangerous and in this case it seems that even that level of caution wasn't enough.

It seems unlikely that someone would make up such a story and I don't see why someone would want to. If the cyclist just came off (maybe if the bike hinge suddenly gave way), then what would they gain from making up a story about being hit by a car?

NoOneSpecial wrote:

First and formost I want to apologise first if I am wrong here, but something does not seem right to me on this one........

So, we have cheap BSO folding bike that has snapped cleanly at the hinge and no obvious damage to the rest of said 'bike'. In my opinion, a collision with a car would have caused a lot more damage.

Cheap LED lights which I assume are either running on 2032 batteries or are rechargable, would not be seen easily and would not light up the road ahead.

Riding on the pavement, erm, isn't that against the Highway Code?

I have seen cheapo folding 'bikes' fail like this before, many times, possibly a kerb impact?

Again, I could be wrong, but something just does not add up here.

But what do I know........

I do apologise for my opinion.

Nige in disguise? Mostly whaboutery in your post.

I was hit at 40mph but there was zero evidence of a collision to my bike. Your opinion is incorrect.

You seem to have missed the point of the story that a cyclist, minding their own business not even on the road, was seriously injured by a driver that, probably deliberately, mounted the pavement to do so.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

was seriously injured by a driver that, probably deliberately, mounted the pavement to do so.

Im gonna call you on that.  You dont get to criticise speculation & whataboutery on someone else's post then engage in rampant versions of it yourself.

The most obvious reason for mounting the kerb at this time of year and that time of night - is boozing - but the reality is that if and until a driver is identified then we just don't know.

I'll also think you'll find that most hospitals and insurance companies wouldnt consider a broken cheek and bruises a "serious" injury.

Maybe cool it a bit eh?

From the point of KSI recording it would be.

Quote:

Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally. 

Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.

Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.

That is a most ridiculous definition; a neck whiplash is not a slight injury.. for starters, there could be a broken neck as a result of a whiplash and the victim should be transported for immediate medical attention with the neck stabilised; I suffered a MVA whiplash injury and the resulting degenerative damage causing spinal stenosis, has left me with permanent upper body altered sensation and neck pain.. slight injury? 

I suspect they are looking at the most minor sort when doing KSI stats. If it was a broken neck, it would then come under Serious Injury, as per the other description. KSI's were revised recently to take into account follow-up data and not just initial reporting so your one, if over here would be picked up as SI.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

From the point of KSI recording it would be.

Cool. Good to know 👍

Muddy Ford wrote:

Why is it called a collision, as if to suggest either party could be at fault. When a person is shot they say a person has been shot, i.e. someone in charge of a gun fired a bullet and they were hit. They don't say a person has been injured or killed in a collision with a bullet. 

Hear hear! My favourite is when they use the words "collision between" a vehicle and a stationary object. Tree pulled out in front of you on a roundabout did it??