Cyclist hit my car... what to do?

Mids_Costcutter

d-seven wrote: »

This is a bloody good reason why cyclists should pay tax and insurance, and have some kind of registration plates on their bikes. Far too often they get away with things that drivers would get find and points on their licences for.

Cyclists invariably do pay taxes.
Many if not most cyclists will already have third party liabilty and legal insurance through their household insurance or membership of the CTC.
A proposed registration scheme for cyclists in London was rejected in 2006 as being expensive, unworkable and in danger of killing off recent increases in cycling.
Cyclists are also subject to road traffic laws.

I'm sorry to hear that the OP was subject to an abusive reponse when they were involved a collision. Would it have been any different though if that person was driving a car or riding a motorbike? There are good and bad road users, regardless of the mode of transport they use.

davidlizard

Many events have an official photographer who take snaps of the competitors as they pass, then put them up on a website for sale within a day or two of the event. I would recommend seeing if photos are available. You might even be able to pair the photo up with a name from the results list.

I have organised road running races before - when the local authorities grant permission for such events, they usually insist on there being adequate public liability insurance in place before letting it take place - I would guess similar conditions exist for cycling events. Might be worth checking with both the organisers and the local council.

Re insurance, whilst most cyclists do have insurance via their household insurance, most do not include racing/time trials that sort of thing. However every cyclist I know who competes in such an event has their own insurance as many events insist on it.

Anyway the chap sounds like a total muppet who gives cyclists bad names.

thelawnet

d-seven wrote: »

This is a bloody good reason why cyclists should pay tax and insurance, and have some kind of registration plates on their bikes. Far too often they get away with things that drivers would get find and points on their licences for.

Find?

I think that's the problem, they can't find him!

I'm pretty sure cyclists do pay tax, there's 20% VAT on bicycles, plus cyclists pay the same taxes as everyone else (income tax, council tax, etc.). Wouldn't help in this case anyway.

thelawnet

Obukit wrote: »

I do think it's poor that they can have these races on public roads though. No matter what they say about having to obey traffic laws, if you put people against a clock you are tacitly encouraging them to cycle like maniacs.

Well it's not like there are any private roads to hold them on.

Any kind of sporting event has public order implications, how many incidents of violence, etc., result from football matches on a Saturday.

A dent in a rusty old Volkswagen hardly justifies stopping these sportive events.

In any case, I've looked into this, and the organisers would be insured.

Here's a policy, not necessarily the same one they had, but:

http://www.cyclosure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cyclosport-Cycling-Insurance-Application.pdf

it provides 'NIL excess Third Party Property Damage'

So damage to your VW is probably covered. Only problem is I would imagine they would want to deal with your insurers, which from the sound of it could cost you more (NCB/premium loading) than the car is worth, let alone the damage to your car.

Lum

thelawnet wrote: »

I'm pretty sure cyclists do pay tax, there's 20% VAT on bicycles, plus cyclists pay the same taxes as everyone else (income tax, council tax, etc.). Wouldn't help in this case anyway.

While I do have problems with some cyclists, the road tax rant is a bit silly. Maybe if this country had cycle lanes that wern't completely useless (and the ones that are shared with buses don't count) then an argument could be made for it, but as we are currently it's a ridiculous position to assert.

I do agree with some form of VRM on display for bikes however. It doesn't have to be as complicated as the one for cars and ideally it would be run by an organisation more organised and pleasant to deal with than the DVLA*, but at the end of the day every other vehicle** on the road that is capable of dealing out damage, injury and death*** to others has to be registered and traceable so why should bikes be exempt?

* I know of a nearby wasps nest that meets this description.

** Certain mobility scooters are exempt, but these are also significantly slower than a bike.

*** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm

thelawnet

Lum wrote: »

I do agree with some form of VRM on display for bikes however. It doesn't have to be as complicated as the one for cars and ideally it would be run by an organisation more organised and pleasant to deal with than the DVLA*, but at the end of the day every other vehicle** on the road that is capable of dealing out damage, injury and death*** to others has to be registered and traceable so why should bikes be exempt?

* I know of a nearby wasps nest that meets this description.

** Certain mobility scooters are exempt, but these are also significantly slower than a bike.

*** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7496757.stm

Hmm, shouldn't we get licence plates for pedestrians as well in that case? They must cause far more deaths than cyclists.

MyLastFiver

The cyclist will have third-party insurance as part of his entry into the sportive. If you want to identify him, competitor photos will be on the website shortly. If he is wearing a number, you will be able to identify him through the event organisers. http://www.southernsportive.com/index.php?go=cx&page=photos&eventid=120129

HOWEVER liability for the collision sounds far from clear. From your post, it seems like your version of events is coloured by your irritation at the sportive cyclists just for being on the road.

Just to correct a misapprehension, sportives are not races, and are not set against the clock. Yes, some riders ride them rather -ahem- competitively, but the event itself is not a competition.

Notmyrealname

Strider590 wrote: »

Sounds like a copy/paste from an insurance report, I'll wait for the helmet cam footage to appear on Youtube


For all you know, the road may have been closed and either missed/ignored the signs OR you may have gotten onto the road via a "shortcut" route that hadn't been considered by the organisers. It's worth trying to contact them first.....

We have quite a few cycle races around here and they never close the roads.

Quentin

thelawnet wrote: »

......Only problem is I would imagine they would want to deal with your insurers, which from the sound of it could cost you more (NCB/premium loading) than the car is worth, let alone the damage to your car.

This is a red herring.

When dealing with a third party who is liable for damage done to you or your property there is no need for the matter to be dealt with by each side's insurers at all (unless there is split liability).

If the cyclist is liable, then the OP doesn't even need to be insured to be able to claim against the cyclist!

(And there can be no impact on the OP's NCB unless the cyclist successfully claims against the OP!)

Strider590

davidlizard wrote: »

Anyway the chap sounds like a total muppet who gives cyclists bad names.

You see, I don't want to throw accusations of guilt at either party and for the cyclist to ride off like that does say a lot really. But I have seen oncoming drivers aim at (to hit) 2 abreast cyclists on single lane or narrow roads.
There's sometimes an element of "you shouldn't be doing that, im in a car, you are a cycling peasant, I AM THE LAW!! im going to teach you a lesson!!".