Hit in the back by a cyclist!

Gordon861

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.

That's not how I read the new law. The way I understand it is the law will presume the car driver is at fault unless evidence show differently.

So in your case, the evidence and witnesses would have shown that the cyclist caused the accident and it was their fault. The only problem would be if it was found that the cyclist was already in the junction when the lights changed red, and you decided to go because the light was green without ensuring the road was clear. The green light only means 'go if the way is clear' rather than just 'go'.

lisyloo

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).

It's not free to go to the county court, plus it probably involves time off work which may well be more than the £40.
The court fees and time off are not reclaimable.

One persons word against another makes it impossible to know what was happening.

Here's my defence.

"I was stationary on my bicycle. The car 2 in front was broken down with hazards on. The car in front of me decided to go round, but was too close so had to reverse.
The car reversed but I did not have time to get off my bicycle. She hit my bike and I put my hand out to break my fall and hurt my hand for which I'll be putting in a £4K injury claim in at some point that suits me over the next 3 years, probably once the driver thinks it's all done and dusted".

Not saying that's the way it'll go.
Just saying that there is no guarantee in court.

The pedestrian that hit my FILs car, put in an injury claim 18 months after the event.
He never got anywhere, but they can come in after the event.

If you can get it then a statement accepting liability and "full & final settlement" would be good.

jambo12

lisyloo wrote: »

It's not free to go to the county court, plus it probably involves time off work which may well be more than the £40.
The court fees and time off are not reclaimable.

One persons word against another makes it impossible to know what was happening.

Here's my defence.

"I was stationary on my bicycle. The car 2 in front was broken down with hazards on. The car in front of me decided to go round, but was too close so had to reverse.
The car reversed but I did not have time to get off my bicycle. She hit my bike and I put my hand out to break my fall and hurt my hand for which I'll be putting in a £4K injury claim in at some point that suits me over the next 3 years, probably once the driver thinks it's all done and dusted".

Not saying that's the way it'll go.
Just saying that there is no guarantee in court.

The pedestrian that hit my FILs car, put in an injury claim 18 months after the event.
He never got anywhere, but they can come in after the event.

If you can get it then a statement accepting liability and "full & final settlement" would be good.

I totally agree with you. How do I go about obtaining this statement then? Is there a template that I can use?

I do think that the cyclist and mother are aware that their claim wouldn't stand up in court as she hit me whilst I was stationary and it was the back of the car that was affected.

I do walk a lot as well and that's bloody cheeky of the pedestrian. At this rate no-one should be allowed on the road :rotfl:

jambo12

Gordon861 wrote: »

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.

After the accident I did ask her twice if she was ok and she said yes. She rode off on her bicycle afterwards so I suspect any hand injury is most likely bruising or very minor cuts.

I will go back to the station thanks.

MORPH3US

If I were you OP, I would straight out ask the cyclist / her mum....

"I was just wondering if you intend to pay for the repairs to my car yourself or if you have insurance that I should claim against"

See what their response to that is.... should give you an idea of they are accepting liability or not without giving them the option to deny liability.

lisyloo

How do I go about obtaining this statement then? Is there a template that I can use?

Normally this is what insurers/solicitors do.
Doing it directly you just ask them to sign. I'm not aware of the template, but if you offer THEM a letter stating that it's full & final settlement from YOU then that's good for them because they get closure and it would be hard for you to solicit more money from them (in say a whiplash claim).
The advantage for you is that you know they won't come after you for a personal injury claim (or bike damage which they have 6 years to do) and if you did get questioned about it by a future insurer you have some proof that it wasn't your fault.

I would just knock up a letter with names, addresses.
Sounds a bit paranoid, but it's nice to know things are done and dusted especially with these 3 and 6 year legal timescales.
If you put it to them that it's advantageous to them then they should go for it.

I would just do something like.

I (Ms cyclist) have paid £x to ms motorist in respect of vehicle damage on mm/dd/yyyy at such and such location. This payment is in full & final settlement for the damages occuring from this accident.

I (Ms motorist) accept £x from ms motorist in respect of vehicle damage on mm/dd/yyyy at such and such location. I accept this payment is in full & final settlement for the damages occuring from this accident.

Then it would be harder for either of you to sue the other.

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

It's not free to go to the county court, plus it probably involves time off work which may well be more than the £40.
The court fees and time off are not reclaimable.........

Nonsense, court fees and reasonable witness expenses are reclaimable (assuming you win)

Basic mistakes like this make me wonder about the usefulness of the rest of what you say

cyclonebri1

lisyloo wrote: »

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 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.



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.

Go back and read the post again:mad:

Someone suggested the cyclist would/could/may have insurance. I questioned that hence this post.

Where did 1 in 50 come from, out of thin air or course, just a guess, hence the question, but since it is compulsory for motor vehicle drivers to have insurance and 1in 10 dont, it's an educated starting point:rolleyes:

Sons and daughters don't have home insurance, plus I have no idea where you get the idea that a home ins policy covers you for a RTA on a push bike. Yes it may cover the bike if lost or stolen, but not for the damage you cause with it.

Your last paragragh beggars belief, just think about it? Just how much damage is done by a biker in a collision compared to a female in a car park. A fatal collisn for a biker is just that, no major cost except the life of the rider. They are rare compared to the number of car park/school mum incidents that occour. The collateral damage cost is much higher here.

When you reply don't forget that you brought the sexist angle to the table:mad:

jambo12

Guys please don't get arsey with each other - fact people of both sexes have accidents fault and non-fault and I really do appreciate the useful info that I have received from all of you.

All I now want is to get closure on the case. Once I've got that then I can go back to more trivial issues such as worrying how to pay bills etc - looking forward to it!!

lisyloo

Nonsense, court fees and reasonable witness expenses are reclaimable

Are you talking small claims court?
I keep being told (on these boards and fool) that not everything is reclaimable.

Sons and daughters don't have home insurance

If they live at home they will may be covered by the family policy.

plus I have no idea where you get the idea that a home ins policy covers you for a RTA on a push bike

The 3rd party liability section.
You are covered for negligence claims against you.
Accidents as a passenger or driver of a motor vehicle are generally excluded, but the cyclist was not driving a motor vehicle (I am a cyclist and I can assure you I've read the wording of my policy carefully) and mine have always said whilst as a "passenger or driver" of a motor vehicle. Not just involved with one.
I have checked the wording on every policy I've had because I wanted cover for myself as a cyclist.

Just how much damage is done by a biker in a collision compared to a female in a car park. A fatal collisn for a biker is just that, no major cost except the life of the rider.

The wiltshire bike safe course I went on, told me that the average cost of a fatality was £1.25 million pounds. That includes police, coroners etc.
That's why they run free courses for bikers in Wiltshire (at the current time).

Here's a reference with some figures as I know it's difficult to take on board, but it's not something I've pulled out of the air.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/ea/highwayseconomicsnoteno12002?page=1

That figure was quoted to me in 2005 on the course.
The information about the accidents being predominantly male, came from a full time (serving for decades) collision investor in the MET police.
I am involved in several road safety groups.

When you reply don't forget that you brought the sexist angle to the table

Err no I didn't, I replied.
But the proof of the pudding is in the FACT that females can get insurance cheaper.
There are even specialist companies that seek the business like Diamond and Sheilas wheels.

I'm not actually that interested in discussing stuff that doesn't help the OP to be honest. Sorry, but have better things to do.