Cyclist and car accident claim

everythingblogcast

Since the driver has a metal box around him/her means they are needed to give cyclists more room and not to race past them. If this case goes to a court of law then the driver will have to fork over the legal bill as the driver is just tryng it on and trying to get money of the OP.

Hope that makes sence.

Mrs_pbradley936

Astaroth you should write a book - I love the way you explain everything, not just here but on other threads as well.

Astaroth

pbradley936 wrote:

Astaroth you should write a book

With my spelling, grammar and punctuation? The worrying thing is that my web browser now has a spell checker and its still this bad :rolleyes:

courtjester

These types of dispute are not decided on the law but on the FACTS. If it ever went to court, which I seriously doubt, the court would be asked to decide between the two different accounts of what happened.

The question of how insurance companies might decide between them as to how to apportion blame between drivers of cars arguing in similar situations is irrelevant, because those decisions are based on commercially driven sharing agreements between insurers, not the law.

Solicitors will always write in terms that they have the law on their side, you are in the wrong, pay up or we will see you in court - it doesn't mean that is the case, it is a bluff. They know very well that taking anybody to court unless the facts are *absolutely* indisputable is a high risk strategy for them and their client.

In this case, whatever the possibility that you may have some (moral or legal) liability for participating in the cause of the accident by not taking care to ensure the way was clear behind, this is still a question of the facts and even you may not be 100% clear on exactly what happened and in what order.

The car driver is automatically on the back foot legally owing to being in a faster more manoeuvrable machine and, coming from behind (without the right of way), would firstly have to demonstrate that despite all the care he/she were taking, they were forced to drive off the road to avoid knocking you down.

This gives rise immediately to the obvious questions directed at the driver - what speed were you travelling at and why were you unable to stop without driving off the road in the event that a cyclist was to veer off track suddenly?

Did you see the cyclist? If so, what care were you taking to avoid the cyclist and allow for any sudden deviation, say to go around a manhole cover, as recommended in the Highway Code?

You *may* have a responsibility, although the facts as described do not clearly indicate that. However, the car driver most certainly would be regarded as either partly or totally responsible - as such any case they brought against you would involve contributory negligence on their part - so they would not get back all the loss from you in the event they won the case at court and probably would be faced with dealing with their own legal costs.

You have no insurance so this would also be a potential issue in that they know getting their hands on any amount awarded against you by a court may prove difficult to recover in practice.

The chances are therefore that they would not proceed because it would simply not be economic for them to do so, particularly where the facts are disputed.

I think you would be best served to continue to deny responsibility, assert that you had right of way and that the accident was in no way contributed to by any default of action on your part, but must therefore have been due to the driver's excessive speed and loss of control.

Don't respond to the bluff "pay up in 14 days or we go to court" - this is purely designed to frighten you into paying up without further ado or cost on their part, which they sincerely hope you will. Whether they actually have any grounds to proceed against you, or the will to do so, is another matter entirely.

Astaroth

courtjester wrote:

These types of dispute are not decided on the law but on the FACTS.
.....

The question of how insurance companies might decide between them as to how to apportion blame between drivers of cars arguing in similar situations is irrelevant, because those decisions are based on commercially driven sharing agreements between insurers, not the law.

I very much disagree with your first comment - certainly disputes are rarely based on legislative law however they are most certainly based on common law (aka case law). The court is there to decide on which version of events the FACTs are (in their opinion) and then relate these to common law to decide on the verdict - or of cause come up with the reasoning of why the previous/ higher court cases the defence/ claimant are quoting are not the same as the case being presented.

I have to ask..... having worked in insurance for 8-9 years for 4 different insurance companies and not a single one of them had commercial agreements with any other insurer who are all these insurers with commercial agreements on how liability is to be settled? There are agreements like RIPE to reduce sending paperwork after liability is established, there is the MOU to reduce court fees by excluding their own costs in the court case etc but none of these affect the actual decisions on liability. The one possible exception is on internal claims where we insured both parties where would send it to a barrister for adjudication rather than to the courts but this didnt prohibit either Ph from issuing and we would fund their sols to do this "against" us.

Now, have to agree that at times insurers and solicitors will agree settlements that may not occur in court (eg car 1 says stationary and car 2 drove into the back of them and car 2 says they were stationary and car 1 reversed back into them - classic car park stuff - out of court this will most likely be settled 50/50 because of lack of proof over which side is telling the truth where as in court the judge would decide if both parties are wrong and that they were both moving so 50/50 or that one party is wrong and so 100% liable) however this is a case by case commercial consideration (same as it is for solicitors on if it is worth the cost of issuing or not) and not a pre-arranged commercial agreement.

derrick

If you read the first paragrapgh of the OP, (One morning in June, I was cycling to work. After listening to what was behind me (nothing at the time),obviously there was, and looking and listening for on coming and side ways coming traffic, I approached my usual quiet space for turning onto another road. To my amazement, a car screeched past me and smashed into a post on the other side of the road leaving me gobsmacked in the middle of it!), it suggests to me that the cyclist is totally to blame, "after listening to what was behind me", did not look, "approached my usual quiet space", not that morning! So it looks to me that the cyclist moved when it was not safe to do so, Highway Code, look before changing position on the road.

As I said above, cyclists should have compulsory 3rd party ins and number plates, you use the road with other,(insured) road users then you should do the same mand take some responsibility.

I know some don't have ins, but that is another debate.

Mrs_pbradley936

If people on bikes should have insurance then so should people on horses.

derrick

Agreed, but again another debate, this one is specific to this thread and is talking about insurance liability

prudryden

pbradley936 wrote:

If people on bikes should have insurance then so should people on horses.

And so should every responsible dog owner, horse owner and bike owner.

Mrs_pbradley936

derrick wrote:

Agreed, but again another debate, this one is specific to this thread and is talking about insurance liability

That's true. In the USA pets under 25lb in weight are included in your house insurance for 3rd party claims. But that is mostly for dog bites because there is no NHS and if someone goes to the hospital for a dog bite they have to pay. I suppose if you have a big dog you have to pay a bigger premium because a big dog can do more harm than a small one.