Hit in the back by a cyclist!

jambo12

Thanks to all of you for your advice. I have certainly learned a lot over the last 24 hours!

I ended up speaking to the cyclist's mum yesterday as the lady was actually too scared to speak to me hence why she had ignored my calls/messages all day until out of frustration I sent a text saying I would ring the polic if she didn't contact me.

I was extremely reasonable on the phone as I do not think that being aggressive in this situations helps at all. She's lucky it was me she banged into and not anyone else.......

The fact that she wouldn't speak to me direct - to me that implies guilt! Her mum started saying that she had hurt her hand and that she was going to take her tomorrow to get it looked at. Ummm surely if you are injured after an accident you would go to the hospital straight away? This implies to me that she has probably bruised her hand from knocking into the light.

I also made it clear that the damage was not extensive and the fact that the casing for the light was around £30 mark but I couldn't comment on the scratches/dent until my mechanic has assessed them on weds.

I explained what happened to her mum as she seemed to be under the impression that I had hit her daughter and once she heard the whole story she calmed down.

I did go to the police station but they were not interested at all. Currently in the process of informing the insurers - hopefully this won't affect my mother-in-law's premium as we are not claiming!!

I'll update on weds evening to let you know the outcome. It's a headache that I really could have done without

lisyloo

Ummm surely if you are injured after an accident you would go to the hospital straight away?

Having been in a (small) accident before I would, because I learnt a little about the formation of scar tissue.
However it's quite plausible that bruising, soreness etc. is not immediately apparent especially when in shock.

I did go to the police station but they were not interested at all.

It doesn't sound like a criminal matter to me.
Getting back the money for your damage is a civil matter.

It's a headache that I really could have done without

It's always hassle.
But look on the bright side. No serious injuries. No major damage.
They are talking to you and there is no reason at the moment to think she's denying all liability. It could be a lot worse.
Hopefully they will see you aren't trying to rip them off and they'll just pay up.

cyclonebri1

lisyloo wrote: »

Having been in a (small) accident before I would, because I learnt a little about the formation of scar tissue.
However it's quite plausible that bruising, soreness etc. is not immediately apparent especially when in shock.



It doesn't sound like a criminal matter to me.
Getting back the money for your damage is a civil matter.



It's always hassle.
But look on the bright side. No serious injuries. No major damage.
They are talking to you and there is no reason at the moment to think she's denying all liability. It could be a lot worse.
Hopefully they will see you aren't trying to rip them off and they'll just pay up.

But did she have insurance, I bet less than say 1 in 50 would have? anybody know the stats?

jambo12

No insurance - no idea about the stats. I think that seeing as they are on the road like other vehicles then it should be compulsorily for them to have some form of insurance as motor vehicles are subject to.

I did ask her twice after the incident if she was ok or hurt. In fact that was the first question I asked her and she was still riding around on her bike! I would expect her to be sore because a few weeks ago like a muppet I tripped on a kerb and scraped my knees and they were pretty sore for a couple of weeks.

The situation wouldn't have been so bad if it was my own car...funnily enough my partner's car got scratched yesterday whilst it was parked in the staff car park by a girl who was trying to park!

Must have been something in the water yesterday

vaio

jambo12 wrote: »

........I did ask her twice after the incident if she was ok or hurt. In fact that was the first question I asked her and she was still riding around on her bike!.............funnily enough my partner's car got scratched yesterday whilst it was parked in the staff car park by a girl who was trying to park!

Must have been something in the water yesterday

Can you see a pattern here?

lisyloo

But did she have insurance, I bet less than say 1 in 50 would have?

Where did you get the idea she has insurance?

Where did you come up with 1 in 50 ????????
Virtually everyone I know has home insurance for 3rd party liability.
But this amount would be better off paid out of pocket rather than making a claim anyway. The problem with claiming is that you lose your no claims and your premiums rise for the next 3 years.
I don't see much of a role for insurance here.
You seem to have an agenda.

I think that seeing as they are on the road like other vehicles then it should be compulsorily for them to have some form of insurance as motor vehicles are subject to.

I can see your point.
But you'd have to include pedestrains as well.
My FIL had a pedestrian write off his car by running across the road.
I can see your point, but a lot of people also complain about the "nanny" state.
I realise this is fresh for you personally, but the stats would show that there isn't a huge amount of damage being caused by cyclists.

Can you see a pattern here?

Women do tend to have more minor low speed scrapes.
On motorbikes the high speed fatalities are almost exclusively male.
Guess which is more expensive?
and now you'll know why us girls get cheaper car insurance.

Gordon861

jambo12 wrote: »

I did go to the police station but they were not interested at all. Currently in the process of informing the insurers - hopefully this won't affect my mother-in-law's premium as we are not claiming!!

I would go back to the police station and demand they make a note of the incident. By rights the fact that she has an injury means the police should have been informed at the time, as the injury came to light later they should be told now.

thescouselander

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

There is a simple answer;

The cyclist will not have insurance.

You probabably don't have a witness.

You do not have a cat in hells chance of claiming from the cyclist.

Sorry, not posting against you but I think I'm pretty much right

I'm not sure the chances of claiming are that bad. The OP could certainly try and claim in the small cliams court (although the lack of witnesses could make this more difficult).

On the other hand, if the damage is only going to cost £40 to fix I wouldn't have thought it would be worth going after the cyclist. The cyclist could decide to counter claim for their injury and the whole thing could get quite messy.

trevormax

mcjordi wrote: »

jambo12 wrote: »

Funnily enough on the radio at the time was a discussion about this new change in law that they are trying to implement making it all the driver's fault!

how can someone hitting you in the rear be your fault???????

Well there has been news stories recently suggesting a change in the law to make it the fault of the car driver reguardless of who's fualt it actually was. This is insane as many times, an accident is due to a cyclist not paying attention to the highway code, going through red lights etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

In fact, only a few weeks ago I was at red traffic lights on a minor roadon a T junction waiting to tunr onto the main road. The main roads lights turned to red and mine turned to green. As I started to pull out, a cyclist ran the red lights and shot thought the waiting traffic on the main road right past me in front of me barely inches from the front of my car. There was no way I could have seen him and if I had pulled out just half a second earlier, he would have hit me.

With these suggested new laws, the OP's accident and the near miss would both be our fault, even though if it had been another car or a motor bike involved, it would not be our fault.

thescouselander

trevormax wrote: »

Well there has been news stories recently suggesting a change in the law to make it the fault of the car driver reguardless of who's fualt it actually was. This is insane as many times, an accident is due to a cyclist not paying attention to the highway code, going through red lights etc.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6841326.ece

In fact, only a few weeks ago I was at red traffic lights on a minor roadon a T junction waiting to tunr onto the main road. The main roads lights turned to red and mine turned to green. As I started to pull out, a cyclist ran the red lights and shot thought the waiting traffic on the main road right past me in front of me barely inches from the front of my car. There was no way I could have seen him and if I had pulled out just half a second earlier, he would have hit me.

With these suggested new laws, the OP's accident and the near miss would both be our fault, even though if it had been another car or a motor bike involved, it would not be our fault.

I dont think that will be the problem with this legislation. If it comes in just imagine how many "crash for cash" incidents there are going to be involving cyclists.