car insurance claim

dgrego123

lisyloo wrote: »

No it wasn't.
There's an error in your approach (about expecting things to proceed normally rather than preparing for the worst).
This could produce other errors in future and you need to change your approach to one which allows you time to react to unexpected events.

I always go into neutral on my motorbike at lights (bit different to a car). This means if the worst happens and someone hits me in the rear and I inevitably let the clutch go then the bike won't try carrying on into oncoming traffic. This won't stop me falilng off, but it will prevent me from being run over which is the (quite serious) difference between bruises and death. This is an in-built defensive and systematic approach.

You had no in-built defence and if you continue to drive as you are you could make more "one-off" errors.
If you have several then your premiums may well be unaffordable and could prevent you driving altogether especially at your age which is against you.



Maybe not, but there is nothing you can do except alert your insurer to possible fraud.



Doesn't sound like you are dealing with anythign to me.
It's not that I am not sympathetic.
I am sympathetic, but you appear not to want to wallow in self-pity about something you cannot change and you don't appear to want to change your driving even though you admit it was your fault and was entirely preventeable with a more defensive approach.

ok. i take on board what your saying.
just hope i get the best outcome of it all. which hopefully will be the right one whatever it may be .
thankyou

dgrego123

Quentin wrote: »

IAM/rospa etc courses are well worth going on for all drivers (we know you won't be doing this again, but they would have taught you not to do it in the first place!)

And don't feel too hard done by over this and now getting little sympathy - truth is you don't know what injury you caused - and you even posted the innocent victims were money grabbing liars who remained in their taxi and never got out! Why didn't you go and stick your head in to see how they were (and apologise maybe!)

i could of done that really couldent i.
im sure if you knew me personally youd no im not that the kinda person that wouldent of cared wether people where injured or not.
i really just didnt know what to do infact, as its the first thin thats ever happned to me .

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I always go into neutral on my motorbike at lights (bit different to a car). This means if the worst happens and someone hits me in the rear and I inevitably let the clutch go then the bike won't try carrying on into oncoming traffic. This won't stop me falilng off, but it will prevent me from being run over which is the (quite serious) difference between bruises and death. This is an in-built defensive and systematic approach.

Seriously, you can honestly say with your hand on your heart you have never ever put your bike into gear until every single vehicle in front of you has started to move forward at traffic lights after they change?
Never even been tempted to put it in first when the lights change, or the car in front of the one in front of you started moving?

lisyloo

Seriously, you can honestly say with your hand on your heart

Hey, I'm, as infallible as the next person, no worries there.
All the observers, instructors, examiners I know, all know they have not reached perfection and have something to learn.
I don't think what you have said is exactly the same as what I said, at least what I meant
What I was trying to explain was that we try to use a systematic approach to reduce the chances and cruicially build in time to react.

I do not 100% go into netrual at red traffic lights, specifically I don't where I am familiar with the sequence of the traffice lights and expect them to change with the next second or two.
If I am not familiar with the traffic light sequence then I would always be in neutral when stopped, yes, it's something do habitually, so whilst I could never say 100%, it's almost a aub-conscious action. If I can keep rolling and keep my balance without putting a foot down then I would do rather than stopping.

I am usually at the front at traffic lights (bikes are great at filtering) so the cars in front are not usually an issue, but the ideal would be to leave a gap anyway in case they roll backwards. I can also manouver round them if something unexpected happens (they stall, indicate right or even breakdown) rather than being so close I can't move.

you have never ever put your bike into gear until every single vehicle in front of you has started to move forward at traffic lights after they change?
Never even been tempted to put it in first when the lights change, or the car in front of the one in front of you started moving?

I don't think that's what I said, but anyway certainly not what I meant.
Actually I'd put my bike into gear slightly early to allow time for blindspot checks.
What I was saying was that the "system" tells you to be in neutral when you are going to be stopped for any length of time.
To me that's any red light where you don't know the sequence.

I am sure I am not perfect and have things to learn and some things are still a matter of debate.
That's why I continue to learn both voluntarily and professionally.

Things are quite different on a bike to a car.
The danger on a bike is from someone rear ending you from behind which can be quite dangerous if they push you into oncoming traffic.
The danger of riding into the back of someone at slow speed is not as great and the chance of damage and personal injury to car occupant is a lot less with a bike of less than 200kg.

I agree there are some discussion points, but it's also about prioritising where your risks are.

Oh and every situation is completely different.
The approach has to be very flexible to take into account road surfaces, other vehicles, cambers (on a bike) etc. etc.
That's why you go out with a tutor/observer for how ever long it takes rather than reading a book.

But even the top guys who are way beyond my level, claim there is never a perfect ride.
If you want to discuss in detail then perhaps a different thread is better rather than going OT on this one?

silvercar

and i understand what you mean i dont know there medical history, but i cant help feeling these claims are not justified.

You could pay a small amount and get an initial solicitor's letter sent asking for evidence of their injuries. It would probably cost you £30-50 and it may result in them withdrawing their claim.

lisyloo

I think this would be a waste of time (just a personal opinion).
The insurer won't pay out without evidence (they need to know the scale of the injuries to offer compensation).

I can't imaine a request for evidence would put anyone off as it's obvious it's going to be required.